Re: [kent-grads] Chemistry

["Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-Pickering@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Huge" <huge@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> > Actually the Prime Minister is appointed on the basis that they are
> > acceptable to a majority in the House of Commons. Which party got the 
> > most
> > votes is irrelevant (look at the elections in February 1974, 1951, 1929,
> > 1923, both in 1910 and quite a few more).

> Hair-splitting 101 is down the corridor a ways.

What do you expect from a History PhD student? ;)

> No matter what arcane,
> opaque and secretive method used, you can be damn sure "we" did not
> elect him.

It depends how you define "we", but the British people *did* elect Blair, 
via the way the system works, whether by voting for him, voting against him 
or not voting at all.

> (And I'd be prepared to wager that the "acceptable to a majority in the
> House of Commons" clause goes through on the nod, these days.)

At the moment yes, but there have been times in the last 30 years when the 
government of the day has tottered on the brink of losing the confidence of 
the Commons. Another hung Parliament would throw up a lot of interesting 
possibilities.

> > Oh and the last government with a 50% + majority of the votes cast was 
> > the
> > National Government (more than a party) in 1935.

> A mere 69 years ago. And I wasn't talking about votes cast, but a
> majority of the electorate. When was the last Government elected (if
> ever) that had a majority of a reasonable electorate (IOW, one that
> postdates the emancipation of women.)

Either 1931 or 1935 - it's tricky to say as a good number of constituencies 
were uncontested, and in 1931 there were a lot where the only choice was 
between two government supporting candidates, and some where the choice was 
between two opposing candidates, all due to the way the Liberals had split. 
But the percentage of the turnout and the size of the turnout brings those 
two elections closer than any other.

But at the end of the day the way the system currently works makes the 
notion of "50% of the total electorate" meaningless - not one sitting MP has 
got this (the one who comes closest can't be arse to sit and that's Gerry 
Adams!).

And a government has legitimacy by the consent of acceptance. I may not have 
voted for the government but I accept it as does most of the country - a 
more important thing (the country accepting it as legitimate - my ego is 
irrelevant) than number crunching on the votes cast at the last election. 
Now if the country wants to force through a dramatic change in the political 
system that brings about what you're looking for (if that's possible) then 
that's all well and true (let's leave aside the mechanics of achieving it 
for argument's sake) but at the moment the present system is accepted and 
thus makes this pathetic excuse for a government legitimate. 


-
To unsubscribe, send email to list-manager@xxxxxxxxxx containing just the
text: "unsubscribe kent-grads" (without the quotes).
For further information email "help" to list-manager@xxxxxxxxxx