To think that Gordon Brown is a fucking megalomaniac who should be removed from No10 for his and our safety?

[Rosieeo]

The man must be on the edge: "OK, you've voted against me/my party in your thousands, but guess what? I don't care and will cling on to my bit of power for dear life because I am Gordon and I must be right."

I've never been so annoyed by politics in my life.

I know it might come to nothing anyway, but the bloody cheek of it all!

Quatt, you are being magnificently even-handed. Watch out or someone will put you thoroughly in charge of everything.

Policy, that's what I tried explaining in my previous post, but you've put it loads better. Brit public had a chance to vote in a Tory majority. They didn't.

Yabu.

Sorry tweety, hadn't really read the thread

Just to build on pw's maths lesson, it's worth looking at the statistics again.

36% conservative
29% labour
23% libdem

That is in no way a resounding majority. And as pw rightly says, people have voted against DC in many more thousands than voted for him.

And yes, your thread title is horribly offensive. And godwin's law too. tsk You tories are looking more desperate by the hour

The trick to avoiding responsibility is to duck.

They did that in Germany, DrLoves, the Grand Coalition.
And both sides hated it, Angela Merkel(sp?) was delighted when her party got a proper majority at the next election.

I don't know why people keep going on about GB not being elected -- John Major was PM for 2 or 3 years before he got elected in, nobody seemed to kick up a stink about it. And the Conservatives were also going on (and on and on) about how they were still cleaning up the mess from the previous Labour govt., that all the failings and problems were due to Labour's mess, not them even though Tories had been in power 13 years at that point.

And NOBODY in the media used to call the Tories on that, either, I just don't get why in 1992 Tories could blame the previous guys but Labour isn't allowed to do it today (shrug).

And I know I will feel very betrayed by Nick Clegg if he allies with DC.

On the plus side, at least I don't have to live under a Tory govt... actually scratch that, I am living under a Conservative govt, but a friendlier one?

I need some sleep too

And don't even get me started on (Murdoch's lapdogs) the media

'Talk about over-reacting!'

talk about fatuous comparisons...

no need to turn nasty just because Dave has failed to win a majority

Well said Iljkk!

Cat I didn't think I was nasty to you, I apologise if I was.

Regarding the maths lesson, people didn't vote for a big lablibdem mush either.

Am being crushed under a red sea of ire...

Ah, so now do you see that your OP was unreasonable?

You haven't had a huge flaming, just a mild roasting and you lived to tell the tale

Of course none of us voted for a mush. But there isn't an overwhelming majority of people who voted against him and it would be constitutionally negligent of him to walk out of downing street.

You're not being crushed under a red sea of ire - just a sea of people who are a little more sensible and well-informed than you are.

If the Tories don't get to lead the next government it's a travesty. How can you have the people who came second and last running the country, in place of the people who came first? How would that be fair?

And when it comes to complaining about bad language applied to Labour politicians, just have a look at the stream of vitriol that's been directed at the Tories on MN.

no no not nasty to me! nasty about GB, who I actually think is a decent chap, but as you say, that could just be my perception (though it's obv RIGHT )

lol @ red sea of ire

It would be fair because it would represent a greater proportion of the electorate than a standalone Tory administration. (Just as a Tory-Lib gvt would represent 59% of the electorate - probably the broadest mandate a UK government has ever had?)

The thing that bothers me is that he's saying "I/We will get us/you out of this mess" but nobody seems to be pointing out that his actions as chancellor and then prime minister have helped get us into this mess.....

abride, because it is first past the post, and the Tories didn't actually make it past the, erm, post.

If you want a system where the proportion of the vote achieved leads to power, then yer best bet IS to side with the LibDems and support electoral reform.

You can't have it all ways I'm afraid...

OK, I've definitely run out of steam now my early-morning anger has abated! HOWEVER I stand by my initial thoughts. Although there may have not been a need for the f word.

(Red isn't it funny how people who are sensible and well-informed tend to share the same opinion as you? )

In answer to the OP, you are entirely reasonable. The man's a liability!

ignorance is bliss innit

I meant well-informed in that you don't appear to know what the law is regarding constitution. If you do, I'm a bit mystified what you think GB's resignation would achieve. DC wouldn't automatically swan into downing street, there would just be an almighty ruck

Ahem as Policy wonk and another poster pointed out the vast majority of the electorate did not vote for the Conservatives.

Unfortunately in many constituencies voting for lib dem was mistake because it simply gave the seat to the conservatives.

With our current system I see every point in tactical voting.

Proportional representation would be so much fairer.

And to answer OP of course he is not meglomaniac and to say so shows a rather poor understanding of politics and constitution.

RedLadyBiscuit Fri 07-May-10 20:19:46
Just to build on pw's maths lesson, it's worth looking at the statistics again.

36% conservative
29% labour
23% libdem

Those figures make interesting reading,I wonder how those figures would read if we had PR and people could vote for who they wanted to govern the country and not vote tactically to keep a certain candidate.

I certainly did not vote for who I wanted to see run the country .