This London Mayor business...

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, the less these elections tell us about anything. Depressing that even in times when you think people might have something to motivate them to vote, if only in protest, and at a time when elsewhere in the world people are fighting for that right, and paying with their lives, that they still can't be ar$ed. 32% was it? So more than 2/3 of people couldn't give a f***.

I think it's more a sign that there is no viable option for most.

Simply can't vote for Tories but can't bring yourself to vote Labour and visa versa - so you simply don't vote.

Lib Dems, Geens, UKIP and BNP are not viable options.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, the less these elections tell us about anything. Depressing that even in times when you think people might have something to motivate them to vote, if only in protest, and at a time when elsewhere in the world people are fighting for that right, and paying with their lives, that they still can't be ar$ed. 32% was it? So more than 2/3 of people couldn't give a f***.

I think it's more a sign that there is no viable option for most.

Simply can't vote for Tories but can't bring yourself to vote Labour and visa versa - so you simply don't vote.

Lib Dems, Geens, UKIP and BNP are not viable options.

So what political system would you like?

veronese68

rjsterry wrote:

Depressing that even in times when you think people might have something to motivate them to vote, if only in protest, and at a time when elsewhere in the world people are fighting for that right, and paying with their lives, that they still can't be ar$ed. 32% was it? So more than 2/3 of people couldn't give a f***.

I completely agree with you. My wife had a 40% turn out at her polling station, apparently they usually get a higher than normal turn out. When I went to vote they said it had been really quiet. How many of the oiks that were disgruntled enough to riot bothered to vote? Impossible to get a figure but that would be interesting.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

In fact, the more I think about it, the less these elections tell us about anything. Depressing that even in times when you think people might have something to motivate them to vote, if only in protest, and at a time when elsewhere in the world people are fighting for that right, and paying with their lives, that they still can't be ar$ed. 32% was it? So more than 2/3 of people couldn't give a f***.

I think it's more a sign that there is no viable option for most.

Simply can't vote for Tories but can't bring yourself to vote Labour and visa versa - so you simply don't vote.

Lib Dems, Geens, UKIP and BNP are not viable options.

Well at least one of those is partly running the country, so how are they not viable options? The Greens are certainly viable at local level, and even UKIP if you swing that way. BNP just seem more interested in a punch up. We can't all have a personally tailored political party that exactly matches our views: we have to pick the best fit.

Some good news at least

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/04/local-elections-2012-localgovernment#block-51

rick_chasey

@13:30ish.

Councils

Con: 35 (down 12)
Lab: 61 (up 27)
Lib Dem: 5 (down 1)
No overall control: 28 (down 11)
Other: 1 (down 3)

Councillors

Con: 741 (down 347)
Lab: 1,405 (up 603)
Lib Dem: 285 (down 178)
Other: 420 (down 107)

The BBC says the results are equivalent to Labour having 38% of the national vote, with the Conservatives on 31% and the Lib Dems on 16%. If these figures were replicated at a general election Labour would win with a majority of around 86.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

@13:30ish.

...
The BBC says the results are equivalent to Labour having 38% of the national vote, with the Conservatives on 31% and the Lib Dems on 16%. If these figures were replicated at a general election Labour would win with a majority of around 86.

That's just bobbins though. Huge chunks of the country weren't voting. Extrapolating a GE result from these results is so unreliable as to be useless.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

@13:30ish.

...
The BBC says the results are equivalent to Labour having 38% of the national vote, with the Conservatives on 31% and the Lib Dems on 16%. If these figures were replicated at a general election Labour would win with a majority of around 86.

That's just bobbins though. Huge chunks of the country weren't voting. Extrapolating a GE result from these results is so unreliable as to be useless.

It's more to give the numbers a bit of context and feel.

You know what they mean :P

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

@13:30ish.

...
The BBC says the results are equivalent to Labour having 38% of the national vote, with the Conservatives on 31% and the Lib Dems on 16%. If these figures were replicated at a general election Labour would win with a majority of around 86.

That's just bobbins though. Huge chunks of the country weren't voting. Extrapolating a GE result from these results is so unreliable as to be useless.

It's more to give the numbers a bit of context and feel.

You know what they mean :P

But it's not really context if it's meaningless is it? I may have a right cob on today. While the parties like to make out that they are in control of all of this under one national strategy, the different council elections are really almost completely independent of one another. And even if all the councils swung to Labour, they would still be operating under a Lib Dem/Conservative central government. It gives a flavour of public opinion, and that's about as far as it goes.

TheStone

I just can't see Labour winning the next election.

The Tories have been really poor, but by holding back on most of the cuts (which both parties proposed) they'll keep enough people onside for the election.

If the worst they're perceived to have done is a pasty tax and freeze in pensioner tax free allowance, they must be feeling fairly lucky.

Around then, the next economic crisis will probably hit and the cuts will be forced by the 'evil' IMF or ECB or whoever we have to borrow from by then.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I wrote:

BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO...

That's "Vote for Boris Johnson", just in case you were wondering.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

One more time.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

I, on the other hand, backed the winning candidate.

So, form an orderly line, and start congratulating me. 'Cos my guy won. That's how it works: my guy wins, and I get congratulated.

Don't push to get to the front please. I have enough time to receive everyone.

Initialised

Turnout has been shockingly low. We need a system that penalises non voters.

No benefits for a month or a £200 fine should do it.

prj45

Initialised wrote:

Turnout has been shockingly low. We need a system that penalises non voters.

No benefits for a month or a £200 fine should do it.

No, it's bad, but low turnout is a message to politicos too, if you forced people to vote you'd get strange results that I reckon wouldn't necessarily reflect the desires of all, unless you give people the "none of the above" option, but then, if you give people that, just let them not bother to vote.

Boris Johnson winning this is a real blow to cycling in the capital.

shouldbeinbed

Initialised wrote:

Turnout has been shockingly low. We need a system that penalises non voters.

No benefits for a month or a £200 fine should do it.

No, what we need is a system that recognises an awful lot of people don't sufficiently like or want any of the candidates /parties / policies on offer and should be allowed to register a positive 'none of the above' vote which forces either a change in candidates or continuing votes until one candidate changes their policies sufficiently to attract enough votes to beat NOTA. At the moment people can only either spoil their ballot & be easily written off as cranks & idiots or be castigated & threatened with financial penalties for refusing Hobsons choice.

It'll never happened tho, as NOTA would win by a landslide in many many places and force politicos to listen to the proles and attend more to local issues & concerns, rather than be confident enough witless partisan drones will wheel out on demand every time to either deliver the customary mid term knuckle rap to the Westminster incumbents or vote for the right coloured rosette which may as well be stuck in a dog turd for all the difference the actual candidate makes in 90% of the country.

EKE_38BPM

Greg66 wrote:

I wrote:

BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO...

That's "Vote for Boris Johnson", just in case you were wondering.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

One more time.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

I, on the other hand, backed the winning candidate.

So, form an orderly line, and start congratulating me. 'Cos my guy won. That's how it works: my guy wins, and I get congratulated.

Don't push to get to the front please. I have enough time to receive everyone.

You seem very happy, but you also seem to be taking credit for something you had very little in making happen (assuming you placed your 'X' in Boris' box). It's a bit like me claiming credit for Arsenal's win because I bought a replica top (thereby putting money in the club's coffers).
Anyway, enjoy your, sorry, Boris' victory.

Ben6899

Greg66 wrote:

I wrote:

BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO...

That's "Vote for Boris Johnson", just in case you were wondering.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

One more time.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

I, on the other hand, backed the winning candidate.

So, form an orderly line, and start congratulating me. 'Cos my guy won. That's how it works: my guy wins, and I get congratulated.

Don't push to get to the front please. I have enough time to receive everyone.

QFT for when even more dangerous [to cyclists] junctions in London are ignored.

rjsterry

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I wrote:

BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO...

That's "Vote for Boris Johnson", just in case you were wondering.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

One more time.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

I, on the other hand, backed the winning candidate.

So, form an orderly line, and start congratulating me. 'Cos my guy won. That's how it works: my guy wins, and I get congratulated.

Don't push to get to the front please. I have enough time to receive everyone.

You seem very happy, but you also seem to be taking credit for something you had very little in making happen (assuming you placed your 'X' in Boris' box). It's a bit like me claiming credit for Arsenal's win because I bought a replica top (thereby putting money in the club's coffers).
Anyway, enjoy your, sorry, Boris' victory.

No! Don't you realise? It was Greg wot won it!

Mind you with the dismal turnout, maybe his vote was the small margin Boris won by. The fact that the London Assembly vote has more closely matched the national vote - Labour 12 seats, Conservative 9, Lib Dem 2, Green 2 -shows how much it was about personalities than policies for the top job.

optimisticbiker

No, it was my family's votes that won it cos we reckon they were in the 2 Harrow boxes that got lost and may (alledgedly) have helped swing it

veronese68

I think the fact that Siobhan Benita did so well illustrates how hacked off people are with politics. She did really well for an independent given she's not famous, had no gimmick, and it was a personality contest. We're people forced to vote, which I don't agree with, I think she could have done better. Unfortunately I think UKIP and the Nazi party would also pick up protest votes were that the case.

Stevo_666

Let's see:
Boris Wins
Ken loses and retires
Lib Dems get beaten into 4th behind the greens.

I'm struggling to see any bad news in this ;-)

roger_merriman

Ben6899 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I wrote:

BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO,
BO-JO, BO-JO...

That's "Vote for Boris Johnson", just in case you were wondering.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

One more time.

HA!

Just so we're clear: everyone who wanted Ken to win - you lost.

I, on the other hand, backed the winning candidate.

So, form an orderly line, and start congratulating me. 'Cos my guy won. That's how it works: my guy wins, and I get congratulated.

Don't push to get to the front please. I have enough time to receive everyone.

QFT for when even more dangerous [to cyclists] junctions in London are ignored.

Here's the thing though, the number killed has a very slight downward trend over the last decade.

Serious show a fair old dip in the middle of the decade, but seem to keep a average.

Slight seems to show a upward trend.

All have year on year fair old fluctuations.

add in the huge growth of cyclist over the decade.

frankly Ken = Good Boris = Bad does not seem to born out, at least in the sats unless you use year on year where you can make either look very good or bad, depending on the year, for example 2003 = 21 deaths, 2004 is 8 2005 is 21.