General Election 2015

[buctootim]

No doubt you will also reason that the majority mostly comprised voters who traditionally support the two major parties whose self-interest was served by keeping this system,and moan about how unfair that is too.

 

Correct.

[buctootim]

 

Did you post that to remind everybody how much less Labour borrowed compared to the Tories?

[trousers]

Did you post that to remind everybody how much less Labour borrowed compared to the Tories?

 

Deep holes need long ladders

[pap]

That's a nonsense conclusion that the existing system is the "worst option"

 

One wonders how it ever came about that it was chosen in the first place, doesn't one?

.

 

Not really. We moved from deity-ordained (supposedly) autocracy to more representative forms of government, bit by bit, with a little more of the country enfranchised with each change.

 

We still haven't gotten rid of many of the quirks, and if someone were to design a system from scratch, there's no way it'd look like our form of government as it is.

 

I mean, how many other countries have members of the Royal family that actively veto legislation? It is the way it is, but don't mistake that for perfection. We're far from it.

[buctootim]

Deep holes need long ladders

 

 

 

I agree with the need to eliminate the deficit. My problem with the Tories approach is that they treat it as just an expenditure problem. Its not, its a lack of government revenue too. Now the economy is recovering they should be raising taxes.

[pap]

[trousers]

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/the-middle-class-moralism-of-owen-jones/15775#.VNojnmisUrU

 

Having caricatured the working classes in his first book, Owen Jones caricatures the ruling classes in his second. Where in Chavs the less well-off were held aloft by our pitying author as the ‘victims of social problems’, ‘vulnerable’, and ‘lacking… toys, days out, good food’, in The Establishment the rulers of society are denounced as ‘venal’, ‘greedy’, ‘despicable’, ‘zealots’, ‘scroungers’, and possibly even psychopathic. To read Jones’ books is to enter into a super-moralistic world in which all shades of grey have been banned for fear of muddying the narrative. There are only the put-upon and the putters-upon. It must be nice to live in such a binary moral universe. I wish I lived there.

[pap]

Have you read "Chavs : The demonisation of the working class"?

 

If so, which parts of the book would you describe as caricature?

[trousers]

Have you read "Chavs : The demonisation of the working class"?

 

 

No. I just quote other people. I'm far too lazy to read books and stuff.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I bet all the lefties calling for PR soon change their tune when they realise it'll give UKIP 20% of English MP's.

 

I've never really understood why the lib/dumbs call for PR, as I believe a large portion of their votes are against other parties rather than for them. My mate is a staunch leftie, but votes lib/dumb because it may keep the tories out. He wouldn't need to under PR costing Clegg a vote, multiply that all over the country and they end up with a handful of MP's.

 

I keep hearing the problem with Westminster is MP's are " out of touch" . How is breaking the link between the MP , your vote for him and individual constituencies going to help that. The party lists will be stuffed full of yes men , and the election will be dominated by a presidential type personality competition between a handful of top party figures. Who is your MP to complain to, who is the guy representing your community ? The answer to too much centralisation is not to give even more power to the party leadership. It is for backbenchers to hold the Executive to account ( something Bercows done quite well with helping ) , local MPs to reflect local opinion and people to vote for the best candidate . I'd vote Labour if the local candidate was the calibre of Frank Field, Kate Hoey or Simon Danczuk . Not to keep anyone out but because I believe they would best represent me in parliament.

 

If people are worried about " fairness" then our electrol system is way down the list. Let's start with our unelected head of state, let's treat England equally and let's stop the establishment stuffing the second chamber with unelected cronies.

[pap]

I bet all the lefties calling for PR soon change their tune when they realise it'll give UKIP 20% of English MP's.

 

I've never really understood why the lib/dumbs call for PR, as I believe a large portion of their votes are against other parties rather than for them. My mate is a staunch leftie, but votes lib/dumb because it may keep the tories out. He wouldn't need to under PR costing Clegg a vote, multiply that all over the country and they end up with a handful of MP's.

 

I keep hearing the problem with Westminster is MP's are " out of touch" . How is breaking the link between the MP , your vote for him and individual constituencies going to help that. The party lists will be stuffed full of yes men , and the election will be dominated by a presidential type personality competition between a handful of top party figures. Who is your MP to complain to, who is the guy representing your community ? The answer to too much centralisation is not to give even more power to the party leadership. It is for backbenchers to hold the Executive to account ( something Bercows done quite well with helping ) , local MPs to reflect local opinion and people to vote for the best candidate . I'd vote Labour if the local candidate was the calibre of Frank Field, Kate Hoey or Simon Danczuk . Not to keep anyone out but because I believe they would best represent me in parliament.

 

If people are worried about " fairness" then our electrol system is way down the list. Let's start with our unelected head of state, let's treat England equally and let's stop the establishment stuffing the second chamber with unelected cronies.

 

Bet again.

 

Fair is fair, whatever the result. As it goes though, you're completely wrong about the LDs. They'd benefit to the tune of 100 extra Westminster seats if votes were proportionally represented.

 

Also, not every form of PR loses the link between local MP and the voter, not that the link means much in an era of parachuted-in preferred children.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

 

As an aside, does anyone know how much travellers/gypsies cost the economy in lost taxes, social housing, cleanups, police issues etc. I bet that's a pretty penny.

[hypochondriac]

As an aside, does anyone know how much travellers/gypsies cost the economy in lost taxes, social housing, cleanups, police issues etc. I bet that's a pretty penny.

 

Not to mention the hours they cost when stuck behind their horse and cart on the road and the cost to repair a shoddily tarmacd driveway.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Bet again.

 

Fair is fair, whatever the result. As it goes though, you're completely wrong about the LDs. They'd benefit to the tune of 100 extra Westminster seats if votes were proportionally represented.

 

Also, not every form of PR loses the link between local MP and the voter, not that the link means much in an era of parachuted-in preferred children.

 

To be fair you don't know that about the Lib Dems as you can't take into account tactical voting and that people like them as local MP's as they tend to do a better job locally. If you can't guarantee your local seat then I think they'd lose a lot of votes.

[pap]

As an aside, does anyone know how much travellers/gypsies cost the economy in lost taxes, social housing, cleanups, police issues etc. I bet that's a pretty penny.

 

As a diversion, more like.

 

Have you ever considered becoming a Conservative MP? I see promising signs here.

[Bearsy]

Not to mention the hours they cost when stuck behind their horse and cart on the road and the cost to repair a shoddily tarmacd driveway.

 

On the other hand, they keep the highways clear of roadkill

[pap]

To be fair you don't know that about the Lib Dems as you can't take into account tactical voting...

 

They got almost seven million votes out of the 30m that were cast last election. All 7m voting tactically?

 

Or perhaps they voted for the big policies, like no tuition fees or war, etc.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

As a diversion, more like.

 

Have you ever considered becoming a Conservative MP? I see promising signs here.

 

No, I just wondered. I definitely don't think immigration is an issue, but I am in an area highly populated with rich traveller's, who, as the name says, do-as-they-likey.

 

They cause massive issues around here, but the police aren't interested, and we don't go after them for tax evasion, even though most around here would be paying 45% (should be 50) tax.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

They got almost seven million votes out of the 30m that were cast last election. All 7m voting tactically?

 

Or perhaps they voted for the big policies, like no tuition fees or war, etc.

 

I have extended what I wrote above...I don't think they would have half their votes if you took away tactical voting, local MP's and especially with the upcoming election, kept Nick Clegg. I also don't believe 7m voted for no war and lower tuition fees.

Edited 10 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Wes Tender]

Correct.

So a referendum, which is the purest form of democracy isn't to your liking either. There really is no pleasing some people. Perhaps instead of a yes or no option, there should be a "maybe" option for those who can't make up their minds, but depending on the figures for each, there could then ensue arguments that a majority hadn't voted for the outcome and that there ought to be a second referendum with a Single Transferable Vote and round and round we would go again.

 

But as the SNP are still not going to accept their referendum decision five minutes later either, I'm not overly surprised that people are still b*tching about how our electoral system "disenfranchises" those whose opinions aren't shared by the majority of the electorate and won't shut up until they get their way.

[pap]

I have extended what I wrote above...I don't think they would have half their votes if you took away tactical voting, local MP's and especially with the upcoming election, kept Nick Clegg. I also don't believe 7m voted for no war and lower tuition fees.

 

So you think at least 3.5m were an informed electorate voting for the Lib Dems trying to keep another party out?

 

I don't have the time or inclination to go through every single constituency, but Lib Dems pulled around 10K votes in both Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen in the 2010 election, over 20% of the votes in a Labour/Tory marginal. If they're getting 20% in a key battleground, it rather scotches the idea that half their voters are voting for them for tactical reasons.

[Wes Tender]

Bet again.

 

Fair is fair, whatever the result. As it goes though, you're completely wrong about the LDs. They'd benefit to the tune of 100 extra Westminster seats if votes were proportionally represented.

Also, not every form of PR loses the link between local MP and the voter, not that the link means much in an era of parachuted-in preferred children.

 

Apart from the very valid argument put forward that a significant proportion of their support was due to tactical voting, their vote total will be decimated this next election by UKIP. As somebody else said, would you be happy with PR if half of the Lib Dems were replaced with UKIP MPs? They're currently polling at higher percentages than the Lib Dems and are a viable alternative to them as a protest vote/tactical vote, especially as many of their voters didn't take kindly to them cosying up to the Conservatives.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

So you think at least 3.5m were an informed electorate voting for the Lib Dems trying to keep another party out?

 

I don't have the time or inclination to go through every single constituency, but Lib Dems pulled around 10K votes in both Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen in the 2010 election, over 20% of the votes in a Labour/Tory marginal. If they're getting 20% in a key battleground, it rather scotches the idea that half their voters are voting for them for tactical reasons.

 

Why are you ignoring the other reasons that I have written above, and saying that half the votes were for tactical reasons. I never said that!? I reckon around 20% vote Lib Dem for tactical reasons, so around 1.5m. I reckon they could lose another million (at least) for their pathetic attempts as the junior party, and another million due to local councils if moved to PR. For instance, my Mum is Labour, but votes Lib Dems in elections as she can't stand the local Labour candidate, and they are the only ones close to the Tories.

 

Current predictions are that Lib Dems will get 7.9% of the vote, compared to 23.6% at the last election. UKIP up to 15.7% from 3.2%.

Edited 10 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[pap]

Apart from the very valid argument put forward that a significant proportion of their support was due to tactical voting, their vote total will be decimated this next election by UKIP. As somebody else said, would you be happy with PR if half of the Lib Dems were replaced with UKIP MPs? They're currently polling at higher percentages than the Lib Dems and are a viable alternative to them as a protest vote/tactical vote, especially as many of their voters didn't take kindly to them cosying up to the Conservatives.

 

Define "significant".

 

It's basically the places where the Lib Dems have a chance of winning seats, isn't it? No-one would bother to vote tactically if the Lib Dems didn't have a hope in hell of victory in their local constituency.

 

So yeah, if we ignore every Lib Dem vote that happens outside of where they actually have a chance of winning, you could say a significant proportion of their vote was tactical.

 

You just need to forget about the vast number of constituencies where they've no hope. Then it works

[solentstars]

 

i think this guy got it spot on..i for one have got fed up with the politics of greed from the rightin this country from thatcher,blair brown years which has lined the pockets of the richest at the expense of the rest of the population. i hope now that the tax avoidance will be dealt with but i very much doubt it.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Define "significant".

 

It's basically the places where the Lib Dems have a chance of winning seats, isn't it? No-one would bother to vote tactically if the Lib Dems didn't have a hope in hell of victory in their local constituency.

 

So yeah, if we ignore every Lib Dem vote that happens outside of where they actually have a chance of winning, you could say a significant proportion of their vote was tactical.

 

You just need to forget about the vast number of constituencies where they've no hope. Then it works

 

How would you explain the potential loss of two thirds of the Lib Dems votes? All due to Clegg and the lost policies?

[solentstars]

Define "significant".

 

It's basically the places where the Lib Dems have a chance of winning seats, isn't it? No-one would bother to vote tactically if the Lib Dems didn't have a hope in hell of victory in their local constituency.

 

So yeah, if we ignore every Lib Dem vote that happens outside of where they actually have a chance of winning, you could say a significant proportion of their vote was tactical.

 

You just need to forget about the vast number of constituencies where they've no hope. Then it works

at the moment its not worth voting in most seats has its a fore gone conclusion who will win in most of the seats in the country ,so i can understand why people do not vote and the truth be known only the marginal seats really matter but its scary we could have a government with only 34% of the popular vote.the sooner we get a voting system which is fairer the better i say

[aintforever]

PR is also flawed, but its proponents can't see them. Principally, it means that a certain percentage of candidates are elected to reflect the percentage of votes polled for a party, regardless of the attributes or shortcomings of the individual candidates, as one isn't voting effectively for individuals. Voting has to be based on much wider areas, thus potentially meaning that one area is represented by somebody living miles away with no local consituency knowledge apart from where they themselves live. Other systems like the single transferable vote are equally undemocratic in that because a candidate was the most popular in terms of gaining a majority of votes, they might be replaced by another candidate purely on the negative grounds that if say 35% voted for them, they didn't have the support of 65% of the local electorate.

 

If there is a poll at a club to elect a comittee, the candidates with the most votes are elected to those posts. Why should it be that the club members would be unhappy with that system and argue that a majority of the members didn't vote for that person?

 

If you had voted Green in all of the past elections, why wouldn't your vote have counted for anything? Surely it would have counted as an endorsement from you for the Green Party policies. As it is, the other parties are entitled to believe that not many of the local electorate care a fig for Green policies, except those which are contained in the rival parties' manifestos under the heading of Environment.

 

I understand the issues with PR but still think it's a much better and fairer system, candidates with little local affinity are parachuted in in the current system anyway. I think you would also get a better calibre of MP under PR anyway because you won't have areas where they would elect any old donkey if you stick a red/blue rosette on it.

 

As for voting Green in the Eastleigh borough, I get your point but you might as well roll up your polling card and shove it up your ass for all the good that would do. At least by voting Lib Dem I can keep the tories out and maybe make a bit of difference.

 

There must be just as many tories living up north who are frustrated by the system. It is bonkers.

[pap]

How would you explain the potential loss of two thirds of the Lib Dems votes? All due to Clegg and the lost policies?

I've explained them all at length both here and elsewhere. The Lib Dems have lost their votes because they've been seen to betray almost every principle they so stridently stood for. I'm not sure we'll see a bigger political own goal than the one-two combo of holding up pledges to vote against any rise in student fee tuition, only to vote for a rise in student fee tuition. If I had to pick a moment, that'd be it. Not only do they lose the entire idealistic core of young student voters, traditionally ripe for Lib Dem bullsh!t, but they also lost parents of aspiring children. I'm not sure that the government ever realised how universally despised that policy was.

 

I was one of the idiots that voted for them in the last General Election, despite having a few misgivings at the time. They were very quick to chuck their leaders when focus groups told them they had to. They ditched "old man" Ming for young and electable Nick Clegg, sort of got elected and were then destroyed by the Tories, aided and abetted by Lib Dem's own pre-election b0llocks.

 

They went a nasty way about getting into power they never expected to have and accidentally got it, giving their enemies all the ammuntion they'd ever need in the process. They got found out. That's why they're done.

[Lord Duckhunter]

So you think at least 3.5m were an informed electorate voting for the Lib Dems trying to keep another party out?

 

I don't have the time or inclination to go through every single constituency, but Lib Dems pulled around 10K votes in both Southampton Test and Southampton Itchen in the 2010 election, over 20% of the votes in a Labour/Tory marginal. If they're getting 20% in a key battleground, it rather scotches the idea that half their voters are voting for them for tactical reasons.

 

The euro elections are fought on a PR basis , remind me how they got on in that. What are their poll ratings ? The only thing that keeps them in business is the FPTP system .

[aintforever]

The euro elections are fought on a PR basis , remind me how they got on in that. What are their poll ratings ? The only thing that keeps them in business is the FPTP system .

 

So you agree that the current system means that unpopular parties get a disproportionate amount of the vote?

 

Great system that.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I've explained them all at length both here and elsewhere. The Lib Dems have lost their votes because they've been seen to betray almost every principle they so stridently stood for. I'm not sure we'll see a bigger political own goal than the one-two combo of holding up pledges to vote against any rise in student fee tuition, only to vote for a rise in student fee tuition. If I had to pick a moment, that'd be it. Not only do they lose the entire idealistic core of young student voters, traditionally ripe for Lib Dem bullsh!t, but they also lost parents of aspiring children. I'm not sure that the government ever realised how universally despised that policy was.

 

I was one of the idiots that voted for them in the last General Election, despite having a few misgivings at the time. They were very quick to chuck their leaders when focus groups told them they had to. They ditched "old man" Ming for young and electable Nick Clegg, sort of got elected and were then destroyed by the Tories, aided and abetted by Lib Dem's own pre-election b0llocks.

 

They went a nasty way about getting into power they never expected to have and accidentally got it, giving their enemies all the ammuntion they'd ever need in the process. They got found out. That's why they're done.

 

Where have their votes gone? I would say a large proportion has gone to UKIP, which would say to me that they're tactical votes, and were tactical voters. Around 40% judging by the relevant increases and decreases.

[Lord Duckhunter]

i think this guy got it spot on..i for one have got fed up with the politics of greed from the rightin this country from thatcher,blair brown years which has lined the pockets of the richest at the expense of the rest of the population. i hope now that the tax avoidance will be dealt with but i very much doubt it.

 

If Owen Jones has the answers god help us. Notice how he mixes the immigration issue like they all do . " Indian nurses" . We have control over how many Indian nurses come in, the immigration issue is that we don't have control over how many Poles do.

 

How do you purpose we deal with the perfectly legal practise of tax avoidance. Tony Benn & Ralph Miliband both arranged their affairs to cut down on inheritance tax for their dependants by perfectly legal means. What are we going going to have a grand committee of the great and good that sit in judgement of which people can and can't limit their liabilities. Instead of shouting sound bites , lefties should tell us which laws they will change, which EU treaties they will amend , and which taxes it will become illegal to avoid, and then put it to the people. Just shouting about perfectly legal practise is playing to the gallery.

[pap]

The euro elections are fought on a PR basis , remind me how they got on in that. What are their poll ratings ? The only thing that keeps them in business is the FPTP system .

 

Sorry, that's untrue. If we'd elected via party list in the 2010 election, the Lib Dems would have had 152 seats to the Tories 228. Under FPTP, the Lib Dems got 57 seats and the Tories ended up getting 307 seats. If FPTP is keeping anyone in business, it's Labour and the Conservatives. That's why they fought so hard to hoodwink the electorate into keeping it.

 

In our hypothetical "PR 2010" universe, there is no way that the Conservatives would have wielded as much power. Much greater consensus would have been needed, and we may have seen something approaching a true coalition emerge.

 

The Thick of It nails real-life when describing the junior partners in their fictional coalition.

 

"You're basically a couple of homeless guys we invited to Christmas dinner. Don't bítch if we don't let you carve the turkey."

 

As for their performance in the most recent Euro elections, they got trounced, and it was glorious. Historically though, they've held up a good share of the vote and had a proportionate number of MEPs delivered, just as UKIP has benefited through PR in European elections. I can see some semblance of a point in Europe. You're arguing that without FPTP to help them, UKIP have kept pace with the Lib Dems, yet if we'd counted proportionally in the 2010 general election, UKIP would have pulled 20 seats total - ten times less than the Lib Dems.

 

Looking at we are now, that's both an indication of how far the Lib Dems have fallen and how high UKIP have risen in the electorate's estimation. The Lib Dems are going to be on life-support after the 2015 general election, and they've only got themselves to blame for that. Historically, First Past the Post has deprived them of power. Why'd do you think they wanted rid of it?

[Wes Tender]

Define "significant".

 

It's basically the places where the Lib Dems have a chance of winning seats, isn't it? No-one would bother to vote tactically if the Lib Dems didn't have a hope in hell of victory in their local constituency.

 

So yeah, if we ignore every Lib Dem vote that happens outside of where they actually have a chance of winning, you could say a significant proportion of their vote was tactical.

You just need to forget about the vast number of constituencies where they've no hope. Then it works

Significant:-

Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy:

 

Quite frankly, it's useless making predictions about what will happen in marginal seats and who the main recipient will be of tactical voting. When it was a Tory marginal and Labour stood little chance of election, then the Lib Dems, or Labour-Lite as they could more accurately be described, were a good home for their protest vote. Likewise no doubt many Conservative leaning voters chose them in strong Labour constituencies if they were the only option to unseat the Labour candidate.

 

Unfortunately, their one-size fits all policies were exposed when they cosied up with the Tories and had to come clean about what they really believed, and having reached their high-tide at the last election, they have badly affected their chances this next one. Although UKIP will take votes off the Conservatives in their marginals and replace the Lib Dems as the vehicle for tactical voting there, they will also take votes away from Labour, especially over the immigration issue. The EU and immigration are two issues which will resonate with the average man-in-the-street floating voter.

[Wes Tender]

As for voting Green in the Eastleigh borough, I get your point but you might as well roll up your polling card and shove it up your ass for all the good that would do. At least by voting Lib Dem I can keep the tories out and maybe make a bit of difference.

 

 

I'm thinking of voting UKIP tactically in Eastleigh to get rid of the Lib Dems.

 

I might change my mind and vote Conservative if their manifesto promised an EU referendum immediately after they formed a Government if elected, but I've completely run out of patience with them reneging on their last manifesto pledge of an EU referendum to appease the bloody Lib Dems and then saying that it would only be in 2017.

[pap]

I'm thinking of voting UKIP tactically in Eastleigh to get rid of the Lib Dems.

 

I might change my mind and vote Conservative if their manifesto promised an EU referendum immediately after they formed a Government if elected, but I've completely run out of patience with them reneging on their last manifesto pledge of an EU referendum to appease the bloody Lib Dems and then saying that it would only be in 2017.

 

I reckon you'll be in the minority. UKIP is normally a passionate protest vote, if what I see on Facebook is any indication.

 

Lord D is well on-board with the idea of a people's army. He's probably bayoneting straw dummies of Eastern Europeans in his back garden as we speak*.

 

*Joke, Lord D.

[CB Saint]

 

 

I agree with the need to eliminate the deficit. My problem with the Tories approach is that they treat it as just an expenditure problem. Its not, its a lack of government revenue too. Now the economy is recovering they should be raising taxes.

 

If that blue line was labelled total unmanaged expenditure, then it would be more accurate

[aintforever]

I'm thinking of voting UKIP tactically in Eastleigh to get rid of the Lib Dems.

 

I might change my mind and vote Conservative if their manifesto promised an EU referendum immediately after they formed a Government if elected, but I've completely run out of patience with them reneging on their last manifesto pledge of an EU referendum to appease the bloody Lib Dems and then saying that it would only be in 2017.

 

It will be interesting to see how the rise of UKIP effects the previous Lib Dem/Tory marginals, you would expect most UKIP voters to be Tory defectors but some will be the protest vote the Lib Dems previously got.

 

I think the Tories are right to be worried about UKIP though, the Eastleigh bi-election showed the Lib Dem vote holding up well down here but I expect where they are up against Labour the Lib Dem vote will collapse. Combine that with UKIP splitting the Tory vote and there could be some surprising results.

[bridge too far]

This is an interesting illustration of where the UKIP vote is supposedly coming from:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

[Patrick Bateman]

This is an interesting illustration of where the UKIP vote is supposedly coming from:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

 

Lovely diagrams! Unless I'm reading that wrong; male, low income, middle-aged & retired, Midlands residents? Actually, I'm probably not surprised.

[hutch]

You lot are clearly too young to remember the SDP and how it completely revolutionised British politics, wiping away the old two-party dominance at a single stroke.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Sorry, that's untrue. If we'd elected via party list in the 2010 election, the Lib Dems would have had 152 seats to the Tories 228. Under FPTP, the Lib Dems got 57 seats and the Tories ended up getting 307 seats. If FPTP is keeping anyone in business, it's Labour and the Conservatives. That's why they fought so hard to hoodwink the electorate into keeping it.

 

 

You can not transfer votes cast under one system and come up with a result under another . Everybody went into the polling booth knowing it was FPTP and their votes were cast on that basis . Are you seriously trying to claim that nobody voted tactically . The lib/dumbs did ok in my area and labour bombed . This was purely and simply because the lib/dumbs hovered up the anti Tory vote. Replicate that all over the country , both anti Tory and anti labour and their vote is higher than their actual support . Just to equate their share of the vote in a FPTP election , to seats in a pr system is way too simplistic .

 

The lib dems don't really want PR , they know that they can fight Tories on the right and labour on the left at present . Their USP was they weren't labour and they weren't Tory . If they really believed in it , surely they'd have made a referendum on it a red line in the coalition talks . Why fanny around with AV, that's not a proportional system . At least the big two parties are honest about it, the libs just bang on about PR , it's a smokescreen

And has been nonsense since the Gang of Four joined the sandal wearers . Now it's all about naked power, not principles

 

The thing I'm looking forward to in 2015 is the party of Cyril Smith, of Jeremy Thorpe , of Paddy Pantsdown and David laws , Cleggy and jailbird huhme getting their smug progressive noses rubbed in it by the great British public.

[CB Fry]

The lib dems don't really want PR , they know that they can fight Tories on the right and labour on the left at present . Their USP was they weren't labour and they weren't Tory . If they really believed in it , surely they'd have made a referendum on it a red line in the coalition talks . Why fanny around with AV, that's not a proportional system . At least the big two parties are honest about it, the libs just bang on about PR , it's a smokescreen

And has been nonsense since the Gang of Four joined the sandal wearers . Now it's all about naked power, not principles.

 

That's nonsense. Clearly they weren't strong enough in the coalition negotiations to demand a vote on PR, they only got about the same number of seats in 2010 as in 2005.

 

And if they had made such a self serving, narrow subject a "clear red line" you, I have no doubt, would have accused them of pushing their own hobby horses rather than entering coalition for the national good.

 

Of course they wanted PR, but they were never going to get it in this coalition.

 

And I am thoroughly looking forward to the party of seat-preserving Tory defectors demonstrating how a party can be about "principles" and not howwible old "naked power" like what the Lib Dems are. Of course Honest Nige has no interest in power at all. Arf.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Yet more DWP inflicted horror stories. 49 suicides/deaths of benefits claimants, with that number suspected to be “a gross under-representation of the true numbers”. Pretty shocking really.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/10/benefits-sanctions-malcolm-burge-suicides?CMP=fb_gu

 

Yes, KRG is a soppy naive liberal etc etc

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yet more DWP inflicted horror stories. 49 suicides/deaths of benefits claimants, with that number suspected to be “a gross under-representation of the true numbers”. Pretty shocking really.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/10/benefits-sanctions-malcolm-burge-suicides?CMP=fb_gu

 

Yes, KRG is a soppy naive liberal etc etc

 

So are they killing themselves because of DWP, or is it just one of many factors..?

 

I suppose if I got in debt with a bank, and had money demanded of me, then killed myself should the bank do something about it?

 

I'm not trying to trivialise what are very sad stories, I just wondered how these can be fully attributed to DWP? I am sure it has an effect, mind, I just don't know whether the Guardian are playing on it a bit (I would guess they are).

 

Edit: Just read the David Clapson story, very sad.

Edited 11 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[pap]

So are they killing themselves because of DWP, or is it just one of many factors..?

 

I suppose if I got in debt with a bank, and had money demanded of me, then killed myself should the bank do something about it?

 

I'm not trying to trivialise what are very sad stories, I just wondered how these can be fully attributed to DWP? I am sure it has an effect, mind, I just don't know whether the Guardian are playing on it a bit (I would guess they are).

 

I'm sure, like many on the right, you'd like to see something, anything that makes you feel less bad about the effects of all those ideas that sounded spectacular in soundbite form.

 

Our own trousers was doing something very similar earlier on.

 

So instead of acknowledging the problem, the natural reaction is to assume some sort of journalistic malfeasance on the part of the Guardian.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'm sure, like many on the right, you'd like to see something, anything that makes you feel less bad about the effects of all those ideas that sounded spectacular in soundbite form.

 

Our own trousers was doing something very similar earlier on.

 

So instead of acknowledging the problem, the natural reaction is to assume some sort of journalistic malfeasance on the part of the Guardian.

 

The Guardian's not the main point I'm making Pap, because of course the Guardian will use hyperbole and miss out facts that don't back up its story, that is their raison d'etre when it comes to the Tories.

 

However, and this has happened a number of times on this thread already, where you have deliberately avoided questions I suppose you can't necessarily answer, instead of making constant assertions as to the way I voted 5 years ago, and my political angle...

[aintforever]

Yet more DWP inflicted horror stories. 49 suicides/deaths of benefits claimants, with that number suspected to be “a gross under-representation of the true numbers”. Pretty shocking really.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/10/benefits-sanctions-malcolm-burge-suicides?CMP=fb_gu

 

Yes, KRG is a soppy naive liberal etc etc

 

Another tragic case I read about at the weekend:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-tragic-tale-of-the-pensioner-who-killed-himself-after-begging-for-help-over-benefit-cuts-10029754.html

[sfc1976]

Does anyone else like to bet on politics? For once some of the Scottish seats are actually interesting. Most have been priced up by the firms now, and some of seats that are predicted to be SNP gains from Labour are incredible. Even Glasgow constituencies with 10k plus Lab majorities have SNP as favourites in the betting. Instinctively think some might be value to back as Lab holds, but then the Ashcroft polls suggest otherwise.