General Election 2015

[Batman]

They were on about the boundary changes just now. Basically would translate to another 20 Tory seats had it been in effect yesterday

[pap]

I like FPTP. How would you get local representation with PR?

 

STV is all about bridging the gap between local representation and a pure PR system like the party list. It doesn't really map to constituencies in the same way our system does. Larger constituencies, more candidates both selected and returned, proportionally from the list of candidates available. We use the system for EU elections, I believe.

 

I would be happy to sacrifice a bit of really local knowledge to have a more representative democracy. Instead of having one MP for my small area, I might have five covering a larger area. As a constituent, I can actually choose the one I want to represent me. Most southern Labour voters moan about their vote not counting, same thing with Northern Tories. Rightfully so. Under STV, those people probably won't get all of their choices, but they may get one. FPTP is very handy on the electoral front for these parties, but it's at the expense of diversity. We should hear more Northern Tory voices, just as the south needs more Labour MPs outside of big cities.

 

Actually think that vote wise, it wouldn't be a huge problem. The huge problem is our inability to compromise, and we really can't point to the recent coalition as an example of that. Year one was spent greasing the LDs up to be fall guys for every bit of Tory policy they fancied enacting, year 2 was weaseling out of their AV commitment and after that, the Liberal Democrats were good little piggies.

 

Coalition would only really work between similarly minded parties, who were prepared to actually work with each other. I don't think the Con/Dem coalition worked, but at the same time, I can see that Labour definitely didn't do enough to convince anyone they were a better option. Business as (sort of) usual for a bit, although I'm looking forward to seeing what those backbenchers get up to.

Edited 8 May, 2015 by pap

[Window Cleaner]

So then overall majority of 12, who'd have thought it. Take out the speaker, Sinn Fein who don't usually turn up and add on the Ulster Loyalists, makes a decent working majority. Bookies must have minted it again, Cons for most seats was short odds,

nigh on every other popular option would have brought them in shedloads of cash.

[buctootim]

Damian McBride (former Labour spin doctor) on twitter:

 

 

 

Yes mate, I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would love to swap places with Miliband and Balls

 

I think hes right. The next five years are going to be very tough and whoever was in government will end up unfairly getting a real kicking for dealing with the deficit (in the absence of rapid economic growth).

[badgerx16]

Whilst you're discussing the inequalities of the voting system, let's hear your views on the boundary changes that ought to have been implemented by 2013 and will now only come into force by 2018 and which would have favoured the Tories with an even greater proportion of the seats.

 

But if they wouldn't have actually got any more votes it merely reinforces the faults that are apparent in FPTP, as they would have required even less votes to gain each seat.

[CB Saint]

I assume with a FPTP system if a party got 50 seats, they could allocate them to whom they like?

 

The issue I have with this is the electorate loses control of who represents them - in fact how would local representation work at all?

 

Missed Pap post above - interested in how that would work.

Edited 8 May, 2015 by CB Saint

[Window Cleaner]

I assume with a FPTP system if a party got 50 seats, they could allocate them to whom they like?

 

The issue I have with this is the electorate loses control of who represents them - in fact how would local representation work at all?

 

Well on PR systems it's based on lists which are known in advance. The party with the most votes gets some bonus seats as well to ensure that they control all of the others. PR isn't really PR, there's always a winner.

[Wes Tender]

But if they wouldn't have actually got any more votes it merely reinforces the faults that are apparent in FPTP, as they would have required even less votes to gain each seat.

 

The Boundaries Commission is there to make the whole thing fairer from the perspective of the number of electorate in each constituency. It needed to address the disparity between many of the cities having several MPs while there are large rambling rural areas with much bigger electorates. But as the boundary changes would have affected Labour, the Scots and the Welsh most, there hasn't been much clamour from them; they'd rather bleat about changing the voting system instead, Labour having lost.

[buctootim]

Interesting table. The right / left balance wouldnt have changed much under PR but the seats would have done.

 

[Window Cleaner]

Interesting table. The right / left balance wouldnt have changed much under PR but the seats would have done.

 

 

If we had PR France would be run by the National Front and it would be an absolute disaster, probably a Civil War.

Makes you think doesn't it!!!!

[Bearsy]

is there a system we can have that gives SNP less seats, without giving UKIPs more?

[buctootim]

If we had PR France would be run by the National Front and it would be an absolute disaster, probably a Civil War.

Makes you think doesn't it!!!!

 

Not sure. I agree with your earlier post - people make a protest vote to influence mainstream politicians, but they arent stupid enough to actually put them into power.

[buctootim]

is there a system we can have that gives SNP less seats, without giving UKIPs more?

 

Independence or nuking Glasgow. Im an undecided.

[Window Cleaner]

Not sure. I agree with your earlier post - people make a protest vote to influence mainstream politicians, but they arent stupid enough to actually put them into power.

 

If France had a one tour FPTP system the FN would be running the country by now. Only the 2 round system is keeping them out of power .

[badgerx16]

The Boundaries Commission is there to make the whole thing fairer from the perspective of the number of electorate in each constituency. It needed to address the disparity between many of the cities having several MPs while there are large rambling rural areas with much bigger electorates. But as the boundary changes would have affected Labour, the Scots and the Welsh most, there hasn't been much clamour from them; they'd rather bleat about changing the voting system instead, Labour having lost.

Completely missing the point, as usual.

Mind you, why didn't the changes take place before this election ? Because a majority of MPs voted against - does that fit your image of democracy in action ?

[Bearsy]

Independence or nuking Glasgow. Im an undecided.

 

how bout if we send all immigrants & asylum seekers to Scotland? No-one will vote for UKIPs anymore cos we've already got all the forreners out, and all the additional immigrants in Scotland will prob vote for i.e. Labour to get more i.e. Benefits

[Window Cleaner]

how bout if we send all immigrants & asylum seekers to Scotland? No-one will vote for UKIPs anymore cos we've already got all the forreners out, and all the additional immigrants in Scotland will prob vote for i.e. Labour to get more i.e. Benefits

 

Excellent idea, provided that they finance it from their own ressources, perhaps we could move Portsmouth to that septentrional wasteland as well. Fit in perfectly in Glasgow.

[sadoldgit]

They didn't vote against devolution.

 

Scotland didn't vote against devolution? My point was I was surprised at how many seats the SNP hoovered up given that Scotland voted against devolution.

[Whitey Grandad]

Scotland didn't vote against devolution? My point was I was surprised at how many seats the SNP hoovered up given that Scotland voted against devolution.

 

The referendum was about independence. This vote was about who they wanted to represent them in Westminster.

[hutch]

is there a system we can have that gives SNP less seats, without giving UKIPs more?

I'm thinking maybe a wall?

[sadoldgit]

Not even John Major in 92 ? Even the opinion polls gave him as losing heavily.

It was the Sun what won it, well that and his soapbox..

 

It is more the fact that an old established Party like the LibDems have been virtually wiped off of the political map.

[View From The Top]

The Boundaries Commission is there to make the whole thing fairer from the perspective of the number of electorate in each constituency. It needed to address the disparity between many of the cities having several MPs while there are large rambling rural areas with much bigger electorates. But as the boundary changes would have affected Labour, the Scots and the Welsh most, there hasn't been much clamour from them; they'd rather bleat about changing the voting system instead, Labour having lost.

 

Strange that some of us were "bleating" about PR when Labour was in power simply because we think it's right.

[hutch]

Scotland didn't vote against devolution? My point was I was surprised at how many seats the SNP hoovered up given that Scotland voted against devolution.

In the referendum they voted against independence, opting instead for greater devolution offered by Westminster.

 

Try thinking more and posting less, it will save you a lot of stress.

[Torres]

I think hes right. The next five years are going to be very tough and whoever was in government will end up unfairly getting a real kicking for dealing with the deficit (in the absence of rapid economic growth).

It may well be tough, but the idea that in 5 years time the Tories will regret having been in government and wish that they'd lost yesterday is nonsense. In that's your attitude why bother in the first place?

 

It's going to be really tough so I'm glad I didn't win, said no losing candidate. It's like a small child who lost the egg and sack race on sports day turning round and claiming they didn't want to win anyway, while fighting away the tears.

Edited 8 May, 2015 by Torres

[View From The Top]

Scotland didn't vote against devolution? My point was I was surprised at how many seats the SNP hoovered up given that Scotland voted against devolution.

 

Labour made a massive mistake in standing alongside the tories in Scotland during the independance campaign. Friends of mine in Glasgow voted No in the referendum but voted SNP yesterday.

[Window Cleaner]

It may well be tough, but the idea that in 5 years time the Tories will regret having been in government and wish that they'd lost yesterday is nonsense. In that's your attitude why bother in the first place?

 

It's going to be really tough so I'm glad I didn't win, said no losing candidate.

 

It's all just sour grapes, they thought that they were going to gain power, they didn't, they were already bleating on Sky before a single constituency had been declared last night. Bad leader, bad politics, they've only got themselves to blame.

[Torres]

Completely missing the point, as usual.

Mind you, why didn't the changes take place before this election ? Because a majority of MPs voted against - does that fit your image of democracy in action ?

Tbf, had the Lib Dems got their way on Lords reform they wouldn't have sought revenge by the blocking the boundary changes.

[badgerx16]

Tbf, had the Lib Dems got their way on Lords reform they wouldn't have sought revenge by the blocking the boundary changes.

 

Such is the Game of Thrones.

[solentstars]

good result for conservatives who i voted for but would have liked the liberals in coalition to stop the looney euro right of the party in check bill cash etc ,but think its disgusting that a party can win a majority with 36 % of the vote in this day and age and that applys to all partys in the past ..at least the coalition had over 50% of votes in the last government,unbelievable when you think that 64 out of every 100 voters did not vote for party in power and even thow i think ukip is oddball party of dreamers and loons, it very harsh on the likes of the ukip which gets one mp on £4 million votes.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Tbf, had the Lib Dems got their way on Lords reform they wouldn't have sought revenge by the blocking the boundary changes.

 

Boundary changes were in the coalition agreement in return for AV referendum . Lib /dumbs pocketed the referendum and then stiched the Tories up.

[Window Cleaner]

good result for conservatives who i voted for but would have liked the liberals in coalition to stop the looney euro right of the party in check bill cash etc ,but think its disgusting that a party can win a majority with 36 % of the vote in this day and age and that applys to all partys in the past ..at least the coalition had over 50% of votes in the last government,unbelievable when you think that 64 out of every 100 voters did not vote for party in power and even thow i think ukip is oddball party of dreamers and loons, it very harsh on the likes of the ukip which gets one mp on £4 million votes.

 

But the more "serious" parties that you have the more the winners share is going to be diluted because people are always looking for something different. Take 1970 Heath about 46% Wilson about 43% Thorpe about 7.5%, the other 5% was just made up of odds and sods and raving loonies. Now politics is more broadspread and the loonies are more professional in their approach.

Edited 8 May, 2015 by Window Cleaner

[Ohio Saint]

One month election campaigns. I miss that compared to the perpetual ones you get here!

[Wade Garrett]

Damian McBride (former Labour spin doctor) on twitter:

 

 

 

Yes mate, I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would love to swap places with Miliband and Balls

 

That is the ultimate spin!

[Chez]

STV is all about bridging the gap between local representation and a pure PR system like the party list. It doesn't really map to constituencies in the same way our system does. Larger constituencies, more candidates both selected and returned, proportionally from the list of candidates available. We use the system for EU elections, I believe.

 

I would be happy to sacrifice a bit of really local knowledge to have a more representative democracy. Instead of having one MP for my small area, I might have five covering a larger area. As a constituent, I can actually choose the one I want to represent me. Most southern Labour voters moan about their vote not counting, same thing with Northern Tories. Rightfully so. Under STV, those people probably won't get all of their choices, but they may get one. FPTP is very handy on the electoral front for these parties, but it's at the expense of diversity. We should hear more Northern Tory voices, just as the south needs more Labour MPs outside of big cities.

 

Actually think that vote wise, it wouldn't be a huge problem. The huge problem is our inability to compromise, and we really can't point to the recent coalition as an example of that. Year one was spent greasing the LDs up to be fall guys for every bit of Tory policy they fancied enacting, year 2 was weaseling out of their AV commitment and after that, the Liberal Democrats were good little piggies.

 

Coalition would only really work between similarly minded parties, who were prepared to actually work with each other. I don't think the Con/Dem coalition worked, but at the same time, I can see that Labour definitely didn't do enough to convince anyone they were a better option. Business as (sort of) usual for a bit, although I'm looking forward to seeing what those backbenchers get up to.

 

how does PR work with regards to the independents? If their total percentage vote for say 50 candidates only adds up to say one seat. who would get that seat?

[Chez]

Labour made a massive mistake in standing alongside the tories in Scotland during the independance campaign. Friends of mine in Glasgow voted No in the referendum but voted SNP yesterday.

 

In my eyes, any `English' party with seats in Scotland (not simply Labour) was going to lose them simply because the Scots felt as though they were betrayed by the English parties after they started backtracking on the pre referendum promises. Maybe some Scots can enlighten us on that one.

[Batman]

Rifkind on sky just now.

 

Basically saying no matter what the SNP say, they have almost no power. They will get devo max and he believes the scots will be generally happy with that.

 

Also, we will get our EU vote and the UK will probably vote to stay in. But reiterated that the rise of the SNP will mean more power to the conservatives no matter what is spun

[CB Fry]

Rifkind on sky just now.

 

Basically saying no matter what the SNP say, they have almost no power. They will get devo max and he believes the scots will be generally happy with that.

 

Also, we will get our EU vote and the UK will probably vote to stay in. But reiterated that the rise of the SNP will mean more power to the conservatives no matter what is spun

They'll get Devo Max. Cameron will give the SNP enough jock rope to hang themselves with. Sucker the SNP in raising taxes and spending like mad, and let's see how it goes for them.

 

The Scots don't want independence, and they won't get a referendum. Let's see how it goes.

[Jonnyboy]

And so it begins:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/hours-after-the-election-the-dwp-says-is-looking-to-cut-a-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html?fb_action_ids=10153155064060795&fb_action_types=og.shares

[OldNick]

And so it begins:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/hours-after-the-election-the-dwp-says-is-looking-to-cut-a-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html?fb_action_ids=10153155064060795&fb_action_types=og.shares

I doubt that was arranged today. It is amusing reading the link on the same page about Russel Brand and his backtracking. The arrogant fool thought he could make a difference, funnily enough I think he may have to a degree as they voted against him.

[shirleysfc]

I doubt that was arranged today. It is amusing reading the link on the same page about Russel Brand and his backtracking. The arrogant fool thought he could make a difference, funnily enough I think he may have to a degree as they voted against him.

 

Of course not, this is all part of their £12bn in welfare cuts. Those damn (employed disabled) scroungers.

[Jonnyboy]

Of course not, this is all part of their £12bn in welfare cuts. Those damn (employed disabled) scroungers.

 

More Tory maths: save £100m but put 35,000 disabled out of work, who then have to be paid £100m in benefits.

 

"Maybe a gas chamber would be cheaper Herr Duncan-Smith?"

[Hockey_saint]

And so a lesson on how many people you can get to believe utter Bull...well, it turns out quite a few. I am very disappointed in my country right now. It's lost it's compassion and essentially it's heart...soon the NHS will probably be lost too but hey, if you're fed the same line for 5 years you get a lot of people who believe it.

 

It's the out of work, poor, working poor, disabled and minorities I now feel sorry for. Don't get me wrong, Labour lost it by not listening to it's core voters but slaughtering the lib dems for essentially copying the tories and then giving them a massive pat on the back is very odd indeed.

[trousers]

soon the NHS will probably be lost too

 

Source?

[aintforever]

Interesting table. The right / left balance wouldnt have changed much under PR but the seats would have done.

 

 

That is just nuts, I can't see how anyone can defend that voting system.

[badgerx16]

That is just nuts, I can't see how anyone can defend that voting system.

 

Ask the Tories on here.

[Hockey_saint]

Source?

 

The 57 protest votes against it's very inception should give you a clue, it's rapid privatisation as well over recent years, it's completely unneeded and very costly reorganising amongst many other things. The conservative party have always been against a national health care system and it survives because even the most batsheet crazy Tory hasn't dared sell it off but since under the coalition Cameron has done things Thatcher wouldn't attempt it will come as no surprise.

 

 

Or maybe just ask someone who works in the NHS their view of what this government is doing to it and how long it has left the way it's going.

[SuperMikey]

The 57 protest votes against it's very inception should give you a clue, it's rapid privatisation as well over recent years, it's completely unneeded and very costly reorganising amongst many other things. The conservative party have always been against a national health care system and it survives because even the most batsheet crazy Tory hasn't dared sell it off but since under the coalition Cameron has done things Thatcher wouldn't attempt it will come as no surprise.

 

 

Or maybe just ask someone who works in the NHS their view of what this government is doing to it and how long it has left the way it's going.

 

They already started to cut NHS funding in the coalition..

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-hit-by-stealth-cuts-of-2bn-as-tariffs-received-for-medical-procedures-are-reduced-10204414.html

[Torres]

We've had nigh on 40 years of conservative government since the inception of the NHS and they've not killed it yet. I don't think they'll do it tomorrow [emoji38]

[SuperMikey]

As for my thoughts on everything, I was utterly shocked that the Tories got such a comfortable majority. The media has got Cameron back through that door, he wouldn't have achieved that without the constant fear-mongering from the papers and pundits as to what unthinkable things might happen if he wasn't re-elected. Just goes to show that the few that control the media in this country (Murdoch, Rothermere, Desmond et al) can spin anything to their advantage. And everyone lapped it up like the f*cking supplicants we are.

[Millbrook Saint]

soon the NHS will probably be lost too but hey, if you're fed the same line for 5 years you get a lot of people who believe it.

 

yep the nhs is going to disappear, they're all plotting it now, sat down laughing in No 10 like a Bond villain. Those nasty tories are going to close all the hospitals, followed by all the schools and sell the land to their friends.

 

you know what if you're fed the same line for years that the tories are evil baby snatchers then you'll probably believe it, fortunately it would seem that most of Britain has got a brain and haven't been brain washed into thinking, they're posh they must be an ass hole.

 

I'm very disappointed that labours biggest argument is 'they're all posh', you know what I'm sure just because they're rich and posh doesn't mean they don't care about people, the biggest problem is that labour supporters all seem to have some sort of chip on their shoulder that rich people are evil

 

They have their own ideas of how to run the country and it is different than labours, your opinion is that they're wrong, well I'm afraid most of the country disagrees with you, I guess we'll find out in 5 years, trouble is people like you will always be looking for an instance of where someone has suffered and point at this yelling 'those nasty tories, this would never happen under labour' well you know what, in a country of 65 odd million people, some things won't work quite as well and some people will get the rough end of the stick, but don't tell me it wouldn't be the same under labour.

 

What I hate about labour supporters is their self righteousness, acting like they're so enlightened and anyone who dares not agree with them is in some way an inferior person with no moral compass or any compassion