Ok now I get it
After some struggling to understand what a "Hung Parliment" means, I have figured it out. Go team Lisa! So here is the explanation, (more for my benefit then anyone elses ;->)
Everyone votes for an MP, on a first past the post system (which I think is correct) There are 649 seats in parliment (ok 650 to be pedantic as one seat hasnt been called)
Now all those MP's vote on whether or not to pass a law. Say for arguments sake, a law the says everyone has to pay 50% tax (I'm being silly but its an example) ok so to pass this law, the majority of MP's must vote in favour. Therefore the majority of the 649 must vote yes.
At the moment the figures are as follows;
Conservatives are on 306 MP's
Labour are on 258 MP's
Liberal Democrats are on 57 MP's
Other parties (including Welsh/Scottish/Nortern Ireland/Greens/etc) are on 28MP's
Therefore no one has an overall majority. Thus the example law cant be passed because lets say the Con suggest the law, with only 306 votes in favour and (adding all the other ups) 343 against, the law would be rejected.
So therefore a co-allition must be attempted. Looking at it mathematically (and in no way am I endorsing any) the options are;
Con & Lib with 363 v Lab & Others with 313 = Law passed Con/Lib win by +50 votes
Lab & Lib with 315 v Con & Others with 334 = Law rejected Lab/Lib have -19 Votes (ergo: fail)
Lab & Lib & Others with 323 v Con with 306 = Law passed Lab/Lib/Others win by +37 votes.
so much as Mr Nick Clegg didn't want to, he is in affect that man that has the power to decide what happens to the British Parliment system. If he goes with the Conservatives, end game. If he goes with Labour, he and Mr Gordon Brown would need to convince the Others to join them.
If this plays out the way it seems to be, we may end up with a Conservative/Liberal Democracts goverment. Would this be a bad idea? I think because they are both at somewhat other ends of the spectrum, the Libs could effectivley keep the Cons in check to ensure that they don't pass laws that are unfair or unjust or unwanted by the general public (eg we keep the Hunting ban)
Whether or not these two seeamingly opposing parties can agree, is up for debate. If they don't, I can only see it being far harder for Labour and Liberals to unite and convince all the smaller parties to help them. Going down this road, may end up seeing the United Kingdom even more divded then it is now. I'm personally not to keen on that. so much as it pains me, I think Con/Lib is the way forward ::sigh:: oh and despite, lots of people not being able to vote, in all those constituancies, it would not have changed the results. ::double sigh::
We shall have to wait to see how this all plays out. If they can't agree, then its back to the merry-go-round of voting all over again. Who said democracy wasn't fun??
Everyone votes for an MP, on a first past the post system (which I think is correct) There are 649 seats in parliment (ok 650 to be pedantic as one seat hasnt been called)
Now all those MP's vote on whether or not to pass a law. Say for arguments sake, a law the says everyone has to pay 50% tax (I'm being silly but its an example) ok so to pass this law, the majority of MP's must vote in favour. Therefore the majority of the 649 must vote yes.
At the moment the figures are as follows;
Conservatives are on 306 MP's
Labour are on 258 MP's
Liberal Democrats are on 57 MP's
Other parties (including Welsh/Scottish/Nortern Ireland/Greens/etc) are on 28MP's
Therefore no one has an overall majority. Thus the example law cant be passed because lets say the Con suggest the law, with only 306 votes in favour and (adding all the other ups) 343 against, the law would be rejected.
So therefore a co-allition must be attempted. Looking at it mathematically (and in no way am I endorsing any) the options are;
Con & Lib with 363 v Lab & Others with 313 = Law passed Con/Lib win by +50 votes
Lab & Lib with 315 v Con & Others with 334 = Law rejected Lab/Lib have -19 Votes (ergo: fail)
Lab & Lib & Others with 323 v Con with 306 = Law passed Lab/Lib/Others win by +37 votes.
so much as Mr Nick Clegg didn't want to, he is in affect that man that has the power to decide what happens to the British Parliment system. If he goes with the Conservatives, end game. If he goes with Labour, he and Mr Gordon Brown would need to convince the Others to join them.
If this plays out the way it seems to be, we may end up with a Conservative/Liberal Democracts goverment. Would this be a bad idea? I think because they are both at somewhat other ends of the spectrum, the Libs could effectivley keep the Cons in check to ensure that they don't pass laws that are unfair or unjust or unwanted by the general public (eg we keep the Hunting ban)
Whether or not these two seeamingly opposing parties can agree, is up for debate. If they don't, I can only see it being far harder for Labour and Liberals to unite and convince all the smaller parties to help them. Going down this road, may end up seeing the United Kingdom even more divded then it is now. I'm personally not to keen on that. so much as it pains me, I think Con/Lib is the way forward ::sigh:: oh and despite, lots of people not being able to vote, in all those constituancies, it would not have changed the results. ::double sigh::
We shall have to wait to see how this all plays out. If they can't agree, then its back to the merry-go-round of voting all over again. Who said democracy wasn't fun??