TSR General Election - Results Watch

This discussion is closed.
Beekeeper
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#181
Report 13 years ago
#181
(Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
Y'know, I nearly forgot about this thread? A piece of TSR history, right here.

(The day I moved into No.10? )
*throws egg* :flute:
0
roff
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#182
Report 13 years ago
#182
Yet the Tories demand respect from others *snort*
:flute:
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#183
Report 13 years ago
#183
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
I thought it had been sorted out that the lib dems would sit in a minority government, if it hasn't why are we debating bills?
I'll move this discussion here.

Do you want to find me the posts that suggest that the Lib Dems have already formed a government? By winning the TSR election, you were given the opportunity to form a government, I see no evidence of this having taken place however. Even if you formed a minority government, surely you would want to see whether Parliament supports you. This can only be done through a motion of confidence.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#184
Report 13 years ago
#184
(Original post by Jamie)
I can't say i understand the system in that much depth.
Labour won 35.3% of the popular vote, leading to a majority in government (if reduced). with tories getting 32.3, lib dem 22.1 and other 10.3.

Now labour has stilla sizable majority in govt.

TSR Lib dems won 33% with labour 26.7%, tories, 21.55% and others about 19%.

So, although our system here is much simpler than the seating system in real life, i think it rather tardy to suggest that because we don't have an absolute majority (not sure what would be acceptable for you - 50% of the entire vote!?!) we cannot form a government.
In a country with > 2 party politics, it is v.rare for any party to gain >50% of the vote.

As far as I am concerned the Lib Dem government is fair, and entirely valid.
The fact is that we don't have a first-past-the-post system here. Your party does not have 50%+1 of the votes. The standard practice for proportional representation elections is to have the party forming the government demand a vote of confidence in either its minority or its coalition government. Until you get that vote of confidence, you have no mandate to rule.
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#185
Report 13 years ago
#185
(Original post by Bismarck)
I'll move this discussion here.

Do you want to find me the posts that suggest that the Lib Dems have already formed a government? By winning the TSR election, you were given the opportunity to form a government, I see no evidence of this having taken place however. Even if you formed a minority government, surely you would want to see whether Parliament supports you. This can only be done through a motion of confidence.
Then why are we debating bills? We obviously have some confusion as to who is the government (there is, and has been, a lib dem cabinet for some time now). And we have some confusion as to what rules we should be operating under.

Looks like we need to sort that out before we continue.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#186
Report 13 years ago
#186
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Then why are we debating bills? We obviously have some confusion as to who is the government (there is, and has been, a lib dem cabinet for some time now). And we have some confusion as to what rules we should be operating under.

Looks like we need to sort that out before we continue.
Because 5 weeks passed without anything being done. In real life, the Loyal Opposition would probably be asked to form a government by now (or a new election called). The Conservative party is not pushing for that for now because we want to see some progress and not have this Parliament disintegrate. Feel free to call for a vote of confidence right now. If you get 50%+1 of the votes, you could claim to represent the government.
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#187
Report 13 years ago
#187
(Original post by Bismarck)
Because 5 weeks passed without anything being done. In real life, the Loyal Opposition would probably be asked to form a government by now (or a new election called). The Conservative party is not pushing for that for now because we want to see some progress and not have this Parliament disintegrate. Feel free to call for a vote of confidence right now. If you get 50%+1 of the votes, you could claim to represent the government.
Hardly, the structures of parliament have been being debated. I have been told that we are the government, I understood that to be a firm decision.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#188
Report 13 years ago
#188
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Hardly, the structures of parliament have been being debated. I have been told that we are the government, I understood that to be a firm decision.
And who appointed you as government? Your own leaders? From the discussions on this forum, I only see that the Liberal Democratic party was told to form a government. Nowhere do I see that government being confirmed by Parliament. I hope that the intent is not to weaken the power of the House of Commons.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#189
Report 13 years ago
#189
(Original post by Bismarck)
The fact is that we don't have a first-past-the-post system here. Your party does not have 50%+1 of the votes. The standard practice for proportional representation elections is to have the party forming the government demand a vote of confidence in either its minority or its coalition government. Until you get that vote of confidence, you have no mandate to rule.
actually i believe we did have a first past the post system when the TSR general election was called. Whomsoever had the most votes was the TSR ruling party.
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#190
Report 13 years ago
#190
we need this sorting out now. Who can make a decision?
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#191
Report 13 years ago
#191
(Original post by Jamie)
actually i believe we did have a first past the post system when the TSR general election was called. Whomsoever had the most votes was the TSR ruling party.
FPP requires candidates to stand for election in individual precincts. I don't see how an election based solely votes for parties can be considered to be FPP.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#192
Report 13 years ago
#192
See as i recall seeing in the od forum (which i now have access to but didn't back then) and infact recall ollie saying before the elections, the system would be a FPP one in order to make it easier, and to actually allow a 'TSR government' to form.
One of the rules laid out early on was no coalitions allowed. AS no party has a majority of >50%, and none ar allowed to form coalitions to get past that mark, this would seem to be quite the dilemma.

You now bring up this vote of confidence. wEll by all means go ahead, but it will only further delay 'parliment'.

I would advise you accept that Lib Dems are in power, and act accordingly.

I will be pming the party leaders regarding this. Its possible that you are simply stepping out of party line. In which case whippage is required.
roff
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#193
Report 13 years ago
#193
What does whippage entail?
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#194
Report 13 years ago
#194
i'm not sure exactly. threat of expulsion/title removal if they don't tow the party line?
roff
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#195
Report 13 years ago
#195
One very fine whip.
0
Acaila
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#196
Report 13 years ago
#196
Why was there a no coallitions rule?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#197
Report 13 years ago
#197
(Original post by Acaila)
Why was there a no coallitions rule?
Because I knew you'd make one.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#198
Report 13 years ago
#198
that said, you aren't speaker thewse days, so that rule can be revoked if needs be.

After all, seems a bit underhand. The tory derived speaker makes a 'no coalitions rule' then the tory chancellor makes comments regarding the lib dems position of rule.
Acaila
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#199
Report 13 years ago
#199
And they start insinuating things about the loonies!

(Original post by Vienna)
Because I knew you'd make one.
Funny that you know that, because at no point did I think that taking my party into a coallition would be a good idea. It's interesting that you know me better than I know myself.

Is our new speaker less petty and presumptious than my learned friend here?
0
WhatFreshHell?
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#200
Report 13 years ago
#200
I think we should allow coaltions.

Also we should have a motion of no-confidence in the speaker if she won't allow them.

A minor party should be allowed the speakership, as then they'll get a much more prominent role in the debates and they don't have the same vested interests as the other parties.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1462)
79.59%
Leave (375)
20.41%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed