Here are the results of the 2010 UK General Election

The Labour Party - 35.3% of the  vote - they have 356 seats

The Conservative Party - 32.3% of the votes - they have 198 seats

-0-

Oops - sorry I  should have said 2005 not 2010. 

What a  wonderful system though - one party gets approximately one third - they get 356 seats. 

The other party get approximately one third of the vote - they get 198 seats.

5 May 2005
		First party	Second party	Third party
Leader		Tony Blair	Michael Howard	Charles Kennedy
Party		Labour	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
Leader since		21 July 1994	6 November 2003	9 August 1999
Leader's seat		Sedgefield	Folkestone and Hythe	Ross, Skye and Lochaber
Last election		413 seats, 40.7%	166 seats, 31.7%	52 seats, 18.3%
Seats won		356	198	62

Diagram from WikiPedia

Can anyone think of a better system?

-0-

If your MP or Candidate is Tory or Labour ask them why they are against Fair Voting

-0-

If they say its so that we get 'strong government' just remember Blair/Brown and Thatcher and what they have done to the country.

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

Iraq Inquiry told Goldsmith misled Cabinet

via youtube.com

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

Labour playing around with Fair Voting - again.

Gordon Brown is to offer MPs a vote on holding a referendum to scrap the first-past-the-post electoral system in favour of the alternative vote.

He is expected to announce the move in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research in London today, with the vote taking place as early as next week.

The measure is likely to be included as an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, currently going through Parliament.

Reports last night indicated that Brown had secured the support of senior cabinet ministers, and will attempt to convince the rest of the cabinet this morning in advance of his speech.

If passed the referendum would take place in the next Parliament, following the general election expected on May 6.

It had been widely believed that the plans had been pushed down the agenda, after a Bill to introduce electoral reform was cut from November's Queen's speech.

Brown first floated the possibliity of scrapping the first-past-the-post system in his speech to the Labour PArty conferene in Septmeber 2009.

The surprise move on electoral reform comes as a poll shows the Conservative lead over Labour has been cut to seven points, raising the prospect of a hung Parliament.

Go HERE for full story on ePolitix

Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous

I thought there was something 'fishy' about PoliticsHome

The Observer associate editor, Andrew Rawnsley, today resigned as editor-in-chief of PoliticsHome.com after the website was sold to Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party.

Rawnsley said that the politics website's non-partisan policy was incompatible with being owned by Ashcroft.

"I became editor-in-chief on the basis that PoliticsHome was dedicated to being a non-partisan site clearly independent of any party both editorially and financially," said Rawnsley, who is associate editor and chief political commentator of the Observer.

"It was essential for users of the site that they could feel absolute confidence in the political independence of PoliticsHome. I do not believe that can be compatible with being under the ownership of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party."

"I therefore greatly regret the decision made by Stephan Shakespeare, the chairman, to do a deal which places PoliticsHome under the ownership of Michael Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party. The site has been folded along with ConservativeHome into a new entity in which Lord Ashcroft is the majority shareholder."

via guardian.co.uk

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

Foolish to allow political dogma to dominate deficit debate - Vince Cable on BBC

Mr Cable said it was foolish to allow political dogma to dominate the debate on cutting the deficit.

“The optimum timing has got to be governed by the state of the economy, which is currently very fragile,” he said.

“(It’s) foolish to have political dogma dominating this debate.”

He criticised both the Conservatives and Labour for a lack of clarity on spending plans and added that the Conservatives had got into a “terrible mess by trying to have some strong political soundbite” on cuts.

via politicshome.com

If only we could get the parties to stop communicating from within their Triibal Politics rag-bags - not unlike ferret - and start telling the truth and co-operating on what is needed.

If only there could be a coalition government with Vince in a senior position!

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

What do YOU do if you drop food on the floor?

via luciamandlik.posterous.com

Thanks to lucia mandlik design

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous

Andrew Blick & George Jones ask 'Time to abolish the "Department of the Prime Minister"?' | openDemocracy

One of the most significant but largely unnoticed changes to the way we are governed in recent years has been the establishment inside the Cabinet Office of a semi-official 'Department of the Prime Minister' which, at its peak under Tony Blair, employed more than 700 staff. This shift - detailed in our forthcoming book 'Premiership: the development, nature and power of the office of the British Prime Minister' - has entailed a more active role for No.10 in policy, with significant constitutional implications.

First, Cabinet, through which ministers can make important decisions collectively, has been compromised, through being stripped of a significant portion of the institutional support it receives from the Cabinet Office.Second, lines of democratic accountability have been blurred. If parliamentarians wish to investigate a certain programme or set of activities, to whom should they turn? The minister with the relevant portfolio and legal responsibility for action in the area concerned? Or the Prime Minister, who may well, using his 'Department', have had substantial influence on a particular course of action? Parliament tends to concentrate on the former, but the recent enhancements to No.10 have rendered this approach increasingly inadequate.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently looked at this issue, and has reported today.

via opendemocracy.net

Is it indeed?

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous