How do you think the GE will turn out?

crispybug2

I said at the time of his election as leader of the Labour party that as the Tories had chosen their version of Tony Blair so Labour had chosen their version of William Hague....... Time has regrettably proved me correct!

eric_draven

crispybug2 wrote:

I said at the time of his election as leader of the Labour party that as the Tories had chosen their version of Tony Blair so Labour had chosen their version of William Hague....... Time has regrettably proved me correct!

pretty much agree,Milliband was not a strong enough character to lead the Labour Party,and i don't see anyone within their party who is,not that it will really matter,once Scotland get another referendum and split,we will be under a tory goverment for years to come

ballysmate

mfin wrote:

Farage and Ukip should have sold their immigration muck as 'all we want to do is adopt the Australian points system'. Not that I agree with it but that should have been the rough sound bite because a lot more people can digest that (because Australia is a country we largely respect) instead of banging the drum with empty and hugely debatable crap and false reasoning. ...It doesn't matter anyway as they would not get anywhere.

The Ukip 4 million votes I find more concerning and attention drawing than the scale of the Lib Dem hammering.

The labour party are out of touch, they chose an unelectable berk to head their party, unbelievable. It goes to show how out of touch politicians are...

No they didn't. The Parliamentary Labour Party and the grass roots chose his bros. The Unions chose Gormless Ed. He was given the job by Len McCluskey.

mamba80

But didnt labour win seats from the Tories in England?
it was the voters punishment of the libdems that ruined labour, no one could have prevented the rout in Scotland.
What will happen when Dave has to some how get out of his promise of referendum is any ones guess, he ll never have one, as he knows the answer and that will be ruinous for the UK.

ilm_zero7

delighted with the result, but Q... has the title of 'Most Hated Woman in the UK' passed from cherie blair, to Nicola Sturgeon ?

cc78

ILM Zero7 wrote:

delighted with the result, but Q... has the title of 'Most Hated Woman in the UK' passed from cherie blair, to Nicola Sturgeon ?

I think what you actually mean is "most hated woman in the Daily Mail"

verylonglegs

I voted to keep my current MP in who was a Liberal Democrat, Norman Lamb. The reason being that I decided to take the election literally, that it is a chance to vote for your local representitive in parliment and I know people who've dealt with him and speak well of his work. I forced myself in a way into this mindset as if I considered the national picture like most and voted for a PM then I really couldn't put my faith anywhere but not voting wasn't an option for me. In that sense it was a succesful election as he kept his seat.

I am a little bit surprised at how much the LD suffered nationally, we all knew they'd take a hit, but the extent of it was overdone imo. People keep citing tuition fees but it's said with real venom like they were the first party in history who ever had to break a pledge when clearly they are not. I also wonder how many who voted for this 'punishment' will regret it in a couple of years when they realise it gave the newly elected government a license to do as they please.

diy

Very good result. I wasn't keen on half my income being taken as tax again. UKIP did well - shame they couldn't convert more of the vote share to seats. I'd have liked the entertainment factor. Lib dems and UKIP failed because people saw the prospect of a Labour/SNP coalition and thought anything but that. All that happened is people consolidated their vote to avoid a Labour govt. In 5 years both UKIP and libs will do well I think when people have grown tired of the conservatives.

Stevo_666

Woke up to hear the Conservatives were the largest overall party; had a huge full welsh brekkie washed down with a large mug of tea while watching Ed Balls lose his seat; did a spot of downhilling; switched the radio on at lunchtime to hear those three magic words:
CONSERVATIVE
OVERALL
MAJORITY

Did some more downhilling, got in car to go home and heard the Milipede has resigned leaving Harriet Harperson in charge of Labour. And the Lib Dems have gone back to being the 'Roger Irrelevant' of politics with a massive 8 seat tally.

Somebody pinch me please

Days do not get much better than this 8)

finchy

mamba80 wrote:

But didnt labour win seats from the Tories in England?
it was the voters punishment of the libdems that ruined labour, no one could have prevented the rout in Scotland.

That's a good point - to be fair to Ed Milliband, he did actually increase Labour's share of the vote, but working on the assumption that Labour has been losing voters to the Lib Dems since their high point in 1997, then why did they fail to win a bigger share of the Lib Dem vote back?

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

But didnt labour win seats from the Tories in England?
it was the voters punishment of the libdems that ruined labour, no one could have prevented the rout in Scotland.

That's a good point - to be fair to Ed Milliband, he did actually increase Labour's share of the vote, but working on the assumption that Labour has been losing voters to the Lib Dems since their high point in 1997, then why did they fail to win a bigger share of the Lib Dem vote back?

Too left wing with crap policies. The last time a true left wing government won an election was apparently in 1945. And some people are still trying to make out that socialism is 'progressive' and the future :roll: . Clearly the electorate disagree...

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

But didnt labour win seats from the Tories in England?
it was the voters punishment of the libdems that ruined labour, no one could have prevented the rout in Scotland.

That's a good point - to be fair to Ed Milliband, he did actually increase Labour's share of the vote, but working on the assumption that Labour has been losing voters to the Lib Dems since their high point in 1997, then why did they fail to win a bigger share of the Lib Dem vote back?

Too left wing with crap policies. The last time a true left wing government won an election was apparently in 1945. And some people are still trying to make out that socialism is 'progressive' and the future :roll: . Clearly the electorate disagree...

Given that no party won more than 36.9% of the vote, clearly the electorate disagrees with all of the political parties and doesn't, as a whole, endorse any particular economic or political ideology.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Given that no party won more than 36.9% of the vote, clearly the electorate disagrees with all of the political parties and doesn't, as a whole, endorse any particular economic or political ideology.

But clearly more of the electorate endorsed the Conservatives than any other party, which is why Cameron is back in Number 10. Thankfully - the alternative was very bad.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Given that no party won more than 36.9% of the vote, clearly the electorate disagrees with all of the political parties and doesn't, as a whole, endorse any particular economic or political ideology.

But clearly more of the electorate endorsed the Conservatives than any other party, which is why Cameron is back in Number 10. Thankfully - the alternative was very bad.

If you add up the numbers voting right-wing (Tory) and the numbers voting left-wing (Labour, SNP, Green, PC) and assuming that about 75% of UKIP supporters lean more to the Tories and 75% of Lib Dem voters lean more towards Labour, then the numbers are about even. That is why I support proportional representation and am once again disgusted by the way that the 2 main parties can take complete control of the country despite not having the support of the British people.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Given that no party won more than 36.9% of the vote, clearly the electorate disagrees with all of the political parties and doesn't, as a whole, endorse any particular economic or political ideology.

But clearly more of the electorate endorsed the Conservatives than any other party, which is why Cameron is back in Number 10. Thankfully - the alternative was very bad.

If you add up the numbers voting right-wing (Tory) and the numbers voting left-wing (Labour, SNP, Green, PC) and assuming that about 75% of UKIP supporters lean more to the Tories and 75% of Lib Dem voters lean more towards Labour, then the numbers are about even. That is why I support proportional representation and am once again disgusted by the way that the 2 main parties can take complete control of the country despite not having the support of the British people.

I can assure you that only one main political party has taken control of the country

It appears that you want is some sort of coalition? Thankfully it's only theory.

slowmart

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Given that no party won more than 36.9% of the vote, clearly the electorate disagrees with all of the political parties and doesn't, as a whole, endorse any particular economic or political ideology.

But clearly more of the electorate endorsed the Conservatives than any other party, which is why Cameron is back in Number 10. Thankfully - the alternative was very bad.

If you add up the numbers voting right-wing (Tory) and the numbers voting left-wing (Labour, SNP, Green, PC) and assuming that about 75% of UKIP supporters lean more to the Tories and 75% of Lib Dem voters lean more towards Labour, then the numbers are about even. That is why I support proportional representation and am once again disgusted by the way that the 2 main parties can take complete control of the country despite not having the support of the British people.

Do you mean the Tories and the SNP?

On a more serious note, effective government is of greater importance than ensuring a "fairer" outcome and simply moves the geographic segmentation to one of number of votes. Cameron's main challenge is to execute policies with majority of 8 MP's so how would a coalition govern effectively and could you honestly say the politicians involved would put country before their own self interest?

Whichever you answer you have a reason for not using proportional representation.

finchy

Slowmart wrote:

On a more serious note, effective government is of greater importance than ensuring a "fairer" outcome and simply moves the geographic segmentation to one of number of votes.

You can have effective government with PR. Plenty of countries manage it and they don't end up in situations in which 24% of the people are represented by 10 seats in Parliament.

Slowmart wrote:

Cameron's main challenge is to execute policies with majority of 8 MP's so how would a coalition govern effectively and could you honestly say the politicians involved would put country before their own self interest?

Whichever you answer you have a reason for not using proportional representation.

The political parties would have to learn the art of compromise. Like they do in, for example, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

On a more serious note, effective government is of greater importance than ensuring a "fairer" outcome and simply moves the geographic segmentation to one of number of votes. Cameron's main challenge is to execute policies with majority of 8 MP's so how would a coalition govern effectively and could you honestly say the politicians involved would put country before their own self interest?

Whichever you answer you have a reason for not using proportional representation.

i believe the argument for PR is that if we dont change our voting system, then fewer and fewer people will vote, maybe so long as the Tories keep getting in, then you ll be happy, but what if that changes and we get an extreme Government in? say on 35% of people who vote BUT only 40% of the total electorate?

Politics in many peoples eyes is already seen as irrelevant and politicians are viewed as corrupt, as people see that voting for anything other than tory or labour, then this slide will continue, remember 35% of the total voting population didn't even vote, thats about 18m people, 12m people voted Tory

I think this is bad for democracy whatever your political slant.

mr_goo

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

On a more serious note, effective government is of greater importance than ensuring a "fairer" outcome and simply moves the geographic segmentation to one of number of votes. Cameron's main challenge is to execute policies with majority of 8 MP's so how would a coalition govern effectively and could you honestly say the politicians involved would put country before their own self interest?

Whichever you answer you have a reason for not using proportional representation.

i believe the argument for PR is that if we dont change our voting system, then fewer and fewer people will vote, maybe so long as the Tories keep getting in, then you ll be happy, but what if that changes and we get an extreme Government in? say on 35% of people who vote BUT only 40% of the total electorate?

Politics in many peoples eyes is already seen as irrelevant and politicians are viewed as corrupt, as people see that voting for anything other than tory or labour, then this slide will continue, remember 35% of the total voting population didn't even vote, thats about 18m people, 12m people voted Tory

I think this is bad for democracy whatever your political slant.

Don't forget we had that utter tw4t Blair returned twice. Hence the state of the nation.
I fully expect that after this 5 year stint of Tories, that most of the nation will have suffered amnesia and vote Labour back in. And then in another 10 years we will be back where we started with a Tory led government picking up the pieces. And so the cycle continues.

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

On a more serious note, effective government is of greater importance than ensuring a "fairer" outcome and simply moves the geographic segmentation to one of number of votes. Cameron's main challenge is to execute policies with majority of 8 MP's so how would a coalition govern effectively and could you honestly say the politicians involved would put country before their own self interest?

Whichever you answer you have a reason for not using proportional representation.

i believe the argument for PR is that if we dont change our voting system, then fewer and fewer people will vote, maybe so long as the Tories keep getting in, then you ll be happy, but what if that changes and we get an extreme Government in? say on 35% of people who vote BUT only 40% of the total electorate?

Politics in many peoples eyes is already seen as irrelevant and politicians are viewed as corrupt, as people see that voting for anything other than tory or labour, then this slide will continue, remember 35% of the total voting population didn't even vote, thats about 18m people, 12m people voted Tory

I think this is bad for democracy whatever your political slant.

Don't forget we had that utter tw4t Blair returned twice. Hence the state of the nation.
I fully expect that after this 5 year stint of Tories, that most of the nation will have suffered amnesia and vote Labour back in. And then in another 10 years we will be back where we started with a Tory led government picking up the pieces. And so the cycle continues.

But that is my point, under PR Blair wouldnt have had the authority to do what he did.
the cycle of lab/tory you refer too hasn't done us any favours has it? and with less and less people feeling like their vote counts (so why bother?) the chances of getting idiots in power, with no or little check, will increase.

Stevo_666

Call me cynical, but its funny how the old PR chestnut is brought up bt people who support parties that have just lost in an election. If there was some left of centre party or coalition in Downing Street today I doubt we would be having this debate....

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Call me cynical, but its funny how the old PR chestnut is brought up bt people who support parties that have just lost in an election. If there was some left of centre party or coalition in Downing Street today I doubt we would be having this debate....

Ask me next time Labour are in power on their own. My views on PR will be just the same then as they are today.

Pross

We have PR. The country is broken into smaller areas and the person / party who gets the highest proportion of the vote in each area gets to represent the people of that area

I actually think the current system is more fair as not all parts of the country are the same and it allows the people to elect the person / party who represents what is best in their area. This is what allows you to predict who will get voted in in most constituencies. It also allows independent candidates a chance which a PR system would be unlikely to do. What arguably needs changing is the way the constituencies are set up so that each one represents a very similar population size. Besides, there was a referendum on PR wasn't there and it came out in favour of staying as we are.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Call me cynical, but its funny how the old PR chestnut is brought up bt people who support parties that have just lost in an election. If there was some left of centre party or coalition in Downing Street today I doubt we would be having this debate....

Ask me next time Labour are in power on their own. My views on PR will be just the same then as they are today.

I would, but the reminder system in my diary doesn't go that far into the future

Bottom line is, if enough people had bought into socialist policies, Labour would have won. But they didn't so Labour lost.

slowmart

Then whoever is in power will face the same issues as the Lib Dems, a lightening conductor for the main party and the realisation that real decisions have to be made which won't be popular and will impact to the detriment of core voters. Maybe the calibre of people entering politics in the countries who have PR are much higher than we have to put up with but when you see the last Labour leader devoid of coherent polices and effective answers for the problems we face then it does make you wonder. The same point is aimed at the Greens who had their best chance for pressing the reset button in the publics perception but failed in their choice of leader to codify or communicate their message to the electorate. Which alludes to the internal choices and the trigger points for such decisions.

Cameron has a perfect opportunity to neuter Labour for the long term in both recutting political boundaries for MP's and isolating the influence of Scottish MP's on Parliament as powers are devolved and the rights of Scottish MP's to vote on English and Welsh legislation are removed.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Bottom line is, if enough people had bought into socialist policies, Labour would have won. But they didn't so Labour lost.

And if enough people had bought into neo-liberal economics, the Tories would have a permanent majority, but they didn't, so they squeaked into government with 36% of the votes on a turnout of 66%. That's not a democratic mandate. That's not even 25% of the eligible electorate voting for them. Same for Thatcher, Major, Blair and all the others, Conservative or Labour.

finchy

Pross wrote:

We have PR. The country is broken into smaller areas and the person / party who gets the highest proportion of the vote in each area gets to represent the people of that area

I actually think the current system is more fair as not all parts of the country are the same and it allows the people to elect the person / party who represents what is best in their area.

Multi-member constituencies, as used in EU elections, offer the same advantages.

Pross wrote:

This is what allows you to predict who will get voted in in most constituencies. It also allows independent candidates a chance which a PR system would be unlikely to do.

I would agree with you on that, but there is only one independent MP in the House of Commons, so sticking with the FPTP system for the sake of one independent MP would not be worth it.

Pross wrote:

Besides, there was a referendum on PR wasn't there and it came out in favour of staying as we are.

Yes, there's a bit of a paradox there. To ignore the referendum would be undemocratic, but by sticking with the wishes of the majority, the views of a very large minority can effectively be ignored, which is also undemocratic. But given the results from this election and the constantly falling turnout, I don't see why we shouldn't debate the point further.

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

Cameron has a perfect opportunity to neuter Labour for the long term in both recutting political boundaries for MP's and isolating the influence of Scottish MP's on Parliament as powers are devolved and the rights of Scottish MP's to vote on English and Welsh legislation are removed.

^that is scary, change the law to ensure that under the first past the post system, your party (whoever it might be) gets in ever time.
didn't some guy in Zimbabwe do that?

Despite what Stevo thinks, democracy was a hard fought right and with so many people disenchanted with our current system and not voting, its up to the politicians in power to change that.
My own view is labour will never get in unless they adopt a more socialist agenda, Sturgeon didn't win all those seats from Labour by trying to be labour mk2, she energised the voters and got a hi turn out.

finchy

Slowmart wrote:

Then whoever is in power will face the same issues as the Lib Dems, a lightening conductor for the main party and the realisation that real decisions have to be made which won't be popular and will impact to the detriment of core voters.

The electorate would have to come to terms with the fact that coalition means compromise, and that if a party only gets 10% of the vote, it can't impose its own agenda.

Slowmart wrote:

Maybe the calibre of people entering politics in the countries who have PR are much higher than we have to put up with

No, they aren't. They have to tell the same lies to the public as our politicians do.

ai_1

As an external observer: Very disappointing/worrying to see UKIP get so many votes, regardless of how few seats it translated into due to first past the post.