The big surprise in Wales was that it was the Tories who benefited rather than Plaid Cymru. The result is nearly as bad for them as it is for Labour. In Scotland, the Tories are still way behind Labour and SNP.

ahahaa this Brons guy is funny! "People who vote BNP know what they stand for".

His speech was so LOL. He was like: "We know we're evil but we're standing up to the hatred being thrown at us" :|

STV works perfectly well in Ireland (and Northern Ireland in the euro-elections). The system of counting the votes is quite complicated but you don't need to understand that to cast a vote.

 

You'd think so, but there was still outrage surrounding the apparently "difficult" papers used in the last Scottish election. No more so than UKIP complaining about people not having the gumption to unfold a voting slip.

 

As for Gordon Brown's new proposal tonight - still favours a two horse race and, in most cases, Labour and Tory. While, say, Lib Dem may be second favourite to a lot of people, the fact either Labour or Tory are traditionally the 1st choice means few Lib Dem candidates would get down to the last two...therefore Brown's hoping that Labour are second favourite more habitually than Tory. Right now Labour would be lucky to come fourth in a fully contested constituency but, given time, it's fair to say they'd have more chance of being second choice for most...

 

So I think anyway.

As far as i am aware the difficulty on the Scottish ballot came from having 3 elections on the thing at once. MSP, Local and Council elections were all being contested on the same day.

 

Thats alright for someone who is going to put crosses [it is a cross right? I won't get my first vote until the next general election] next to one party, but some people are going have put thought into and be voting differently at a national level than at a council level. From what i've heard it was easy to get confused.

 

And our ballot was carried out by Westminster. They wouldn't even let Holyrood carry out it's own elections. Salmond loved that.

Looks like the election will be next May then?

As far as i am aware the difficulty on the Scottish ballot came from having 3 elections on the thing at once. MSP, Local and Council elections were all being contested on the same day.

 

Thats alright for someone who is going to put crosses [it is a cross right? I won't get my first vote until the next general election] next to one party, but some people are going have put thought into and be voting differently at a national level than at a council level. From what i've heard it was easy to get confused.

 

And our ballot was carried out by Westminster. They wouldn't even let Holyrood carry out it's own elections. Salmond loved that.

That's my recollection as well. Three elections with three different systems at the same time is not a good idea.

You'd think so, but there was still outrage surrounding the apparently "difficult" papers used in the last Scottish election. No more so than UKIP complaining about people not having the gumption to unfold a voting slip.

 

As for Gordon Brown's new proposal tonight - still favours a two horse race and, in most cases, Labour and Tory. While, say, Lib Dem may be second favourite to a lot of people, the fact either Labour or Tory are traditionally the 1st choice means few Lib Dem candidates would get down to the last two...therefore Brown's hoping that Labour are second favourite more habitually than Tory. Right now Labour would be lucky to come fourth in a fully contested constituency but, given time, it's fair to say they'd have more chance of being second choice for most...

 

So I think anyway.

As far as I understand it, Brown is referring to a full alternative vote system (where you can vote for as many candidates as you like in order) rather than the cack-handed system used in mayoral elections (where you have to guess who the top two will be and may be deterred from voting for your real first choice as it might see your second choice eliminated).

 

The biggest problem with AV is that it can lead to an even more distorted result than the current system. Estimates at the time suggested that Labour's majority in 1997 would have been even higher than the 179 seat majority they actually got. It also doesn't allow voters to choose between candidates of one party. STV does let voters do that.

Looks like the election will be next May then?

 

Broon will have no choice, it'll be 5 years into the current Labour admin... Frankly, I think if Labour go into that election with Broon they'll face catastrophic disaster that'll see them in the wilderness like the Tories were, but with a different leader, the damage may be controllable....

 

I actually think Brown will call an election for this October, to try and wrong-foot his opponents, considering there'll inevitably be yet more talk of a leadership threat around the time of the party conferences (which will no doubt once again prove to be a load of smoke without fire).

Edited June 11, 200916 yr by Danny

I actually think Brown will call an election for this October, to try and wrong-foot his opponents, considering there'll inevitably be yet more talk of a leadership threat around the time of the party conferences (which will no doubt once again prove to be a load of smoke without fire).

 

If Brown calls an election in October, Labour will be absolutely slaughtered..... It's simple in my book, if Labour even hopes to salvage any kind of respect for itself, then it needs to ditch Gordon Brown, he is Poll Booth poison, he's NEVER had the support of the public, NEVER actually won anything on his own merits, NEVER taken the Party to anything like a respectable victory... Brown's credentials as PM, as Party Leader and as democrat, are absolutely shocking, he has absolutely ZERO credibility, and people know it, if he stays, or takes Labour into an election, they'll be lucky to emerge from it even as healthy as the Tories did in '97.....

 

I think he'll stay now and the election will be next May.

hes got nothing to lose by waiting, IF things improve he has nearly a year to turn things around.

hes got nothing to lose by waiting,

 

Well, no, BROON has nothing to lose by clinging onto power like a desperate despot, but the bloody Labour movement will be almost certainly damaged beyond fukkin' repair if he doesn't step down now and let someone else try and limit the damage.... You seriously just do not seem to realise that BROON is the chief reason why the Labour party is absolutely haemorrhaging votes like a severed artery...... -_-

 

I think that Labour would actually do a lot better to call for an election ASAP. Since they have to have one by May, I don't think they're doing themselves any favours by waiting - I can't see them becoming more popular over the next few months, and I really think that they're only going to become less so.

So they'd do better to have an election now, while they're as popular as they're going to be - at least that way they'll get as many seats as they can.

If Brown calls an election in October, Labour will be absolutely slaughtered..... It's simple in my book, if Labour even hopes to salvage any kind of respect for itself, then it needs to ditch Gordon Brown, he is Poll Booth poison, he's NEVER had the support of the public, NEVER actually won anything on his own merits, NEVER taken the Party to anything like a respectable victory... Brown's credentials as PM, as Party Leader and as democrat, are absolutely shocking, he has absolutely ZERO credibility, and people know it, if he stays, or takes Labour into an election, they'll be lucky to emerge from it even as healthy as the Tories did in '97.....

I disagree, he is beginning to fool people has already got lots of people fooled. You forget he has the BBC at his control. He will wait until next May, using a temporary economic spring board. He just might make it, people are rather gullible and there is only a rather lightweight, right winging, out of touch conservative party in the way.

Edited June 11, 200916 yr by Ricky

I'd say there are three possible dates for the next election. He won't go for October. That may catch the opposition by surprise but it will leave the Lisbon treaty unratified. If the Tories win they will hold a referendum on the treaty. If the vote goes against the treaty (very likely given the lies that will be published in most of the press) that will cause chaos.

 

So, that leaves three possible dates next year. He could do what John Major did in 1992 and go for April. That could take the opposition by surprise. However, he won't do that if he thinks Labour will lose badly as it risks further heavy losses in the local elections in May.

 

The next possibility is May coinciding with the local elections. At the moment, that seems the most likely.

 

That leaves June. He will only want to do that if the economy is showing real signs of recovery. Otherwise, there's the risk of awful local election results in May and a demoralised party trying to fight a general election immediately afterwards.

 

There's another possibility though. Gordon Brown is a politician to his very fingertips and a politician who hates Tories. So he could try to wrongfoot them. He could go for a referendum on reform of the electoral system in April or May followed by a general election. The plan would be to win the referendum and then defy the Tories to include a promise to ignore the result of the referendum in their manifesto. That's a risk (many people might vote against reform simply as an anti-Labour vote regardless of the merits of reform) but he might just go for it.

Edited June 11, 200916 yr by Suedehead2

If Brown calls an election in October, Labour will be absolutely slaughtered..... It's simple in my book, if Labour even hopes to salvage any kind of respect for itself, then it needs to ditch Gordon Brown, he is Poll Booth poison, he's NEVER had the support of the public, NEVER actually won anything on his own merits, NEVER taken the Party to anything like a respectable victory... Brown's credentials as PM, as Party Leader and as democrat, are absolutely shocking, he has absolutely ZERO credibility, and people know it, if he stays, or takes Labour into an election, they'll be lucky to emerge from it even as healthy as the Tories did in '97.....

I really don't want to see another leadership crisis in the Labour Party before the next election. That's twice it's happened in the last year, and that's enough. Now that this leadership "threat" seems to have fizzled out, the Party has effectively re-elected Brown their leader as far as I'm concerned, and so, now it's time for them to actually try running the country rather than anymore self-indulgent crap.

 

I agree though that Brown has very little chance of winning the next election. The only possible way I can see it happening is a dramatic recovery for the economy (which still looks unlikely to happen in the next year), a promise for major constitutional reform and Brown promising he won't serve a full term. And with Alan Johnson being given one of the most prominent positions in the election campaign, NOT Mandelson or Miliband. People are not going to accept more Blair-like slick figures from Labour.

 

Personally, I really feel it would be kinder for the Party for them to call an election asap - right now, it really seems another year in government would just drag the Party even more through the dirt, which would take even longer to shake off. Even if by some miracle they DO win the next election, that would probably be even worse for them, the same old problems would just emerge even after that election - this government is just tired after such a long period in office (because it's NOT just Brown that's causing their problems, the Party itself has clearly run out of creative steam). The best thing for them is to get out of office asap, regroup, formulate a new agenda and maybe they can challenge the Tories reinvigorated in a few years.

Edited June 11, 200916 yr by Danny

If Brown stays PM he's going to want to keep the job as long as possible, so another year. He's wanted to be PM since he was 14 so ain't gonna call an election until he HAS TO.

The longer Labour cling on the worse they are going to do. I severely doubt our economy is going to sort itself out within the next year with Labour in charge. Our economy is so linked to America's it is unreal, as soon as the States starts to pick up, i think then we'll start to see a recovery. Or at least until the banks get over the shocks of nearly going bankrupt and start lending the people and small businesses again.

The credit crunch is over now though in the UK so a strong economic recovery coupled with some gimmicky tax cuts in a pre election budget might just reduce Cameron's win from 150-200 down to about 100 but even though the credit crunch is over (housing market is going through the roof again, manufacturing output is up etc) people blame the government and rightly so for the banking crisis in the first place and over the expenses so Brown even if he abolished income tax would not win the next election but for sure he will leave it right till the end before going to the polls :manson: