UK 2015 General Election - Conservative Victory

[Bobz]

FPTP is superior to PR because it allows for solidified government. Is it unfair that UKIP got one seat despite the fact that they got 4 million votes? Well yeah it is, but on the other hand, if we had had PR we'd be perpetually forced into weird and potentially dangerous coalitions which would enfranchise electoral minorities further than their voting share. In other words, it would be the same problem but in reverse. In this case we'd have a party which got 12% of the vote (ie UKIP) forcing their agenda onto a Conservative minority. In this way, manifesto's would become meaningless because the "dominant" party would have to cede large chucks of its agenda in order to secure the support of other parties.

[/QUOTE]

And why is that a problem? If parties have to negotiate and mix their policies in order to form a majority then so be it; they are arguably going along with the will of the electorate. "Strong government", if a tiny Conservative majority is really a strong government, is not worth being so unrepresentative of the votes.

[Pielstick]

As far as UKIP are concerned...

- They polled one-third the number of votes for the Conservatives (with 330 seats).
- They polled 40% the number of votes for Labour (with 232 seats).
- They polled over two and a half times as many votes as the SNP (with 56 seats).
- They polled more than three times the number of votes as the Greens (with 1 seat).
- They polled a whopping twenty one times more votes than the DUP (with 8 seats).

Two things you can draw from this:

- On the face of it at least, it's a damning indictment of FPTP.
- Whether you like UKIP or not, you can't deny the party has experienced a meteoric rise in popularity.

[Aymer de Valence]

What an election....


What with Ed's 10 Commandments, proof that 4 million votes can win you just 1 seat (UKIP are now the third party, however), a polling station in some chap's living room, the Scots voting in a 20 year old, and a political map that now looks like Maggie Simpson.


Still, I'm content with the results. Labour must never be able to govern in this land ever again

[Bobz]

A few more arguements for electoral reform:

In Northern Ireland the SDLP had 99,809 total votes and held three seats. One of them, Belfast South, was won on 24.5% of the vote...

Plaid Cymru also held three seats, but this time on a slightly higher 181,694 votes. (It appears that despite being briefly in the spotlight as an almost major party, they don't appear to have strengthened their hand with seats or votes.)

The Scottish Conservatives gained 434,000 votes and one seat (and I must admit, I'm shocked that was one of the three seats that didn't go SNP) while their Welsh counterparts had 408,000 votes and 11 MPs.

Finally Lord Ashcroft (not Ashdown, who now has to eat a hat) slapped down Edwina Currie on twitter this morning in supporting reform. If you oppose electoral reform, you're agreeing with Edwina Currie. Surely you know you're wrong?

[caratacus]

It hardly matters now: Scotland has essentially voted itself into being a dominion within the English Empire, like Canada in the 1920s. Rather than a stronger voice for Scotland the SNP have ended up with no voice at all since they can't form a government and can't influence the governing party

You could say the same is true for the people of North East England, that routinely votes in Labour MPs and as a consequence has been sidelined by both Conservative governments and Labour ones,although they appear to be slow to understand this! Despite this also, it was in NE England, that a regional assembly was offered by a Labour government and refused.

A vote for the SNP in this election, should not automatically be taken as a vote to break away from the Union. The Tories aren't a unionist party, as their campaign have demonstrated and their popularity ratings in Scotland haven't changed substantially in over 30 years. What has changed however is the impetus of the Scottish Parliament has towards a greater say in deciding Scottish affairs, which has led to the growing strength of the SNP which has no interest in maintaining the Union and created an "us and them" viewpoint for many Scottish voters

Having been instrumental in creating a Scottish parliament,in a form which makes it a rival to Westminster, in an attempt to consolidate their own grip in Scotland (something they saw English regional assemblies would provide south of the Border) Labour have only served to stoke the fires of Scottish nationalism and are now paying the price. The Scottish Labour party can now only survive by being less controlled by Miliband's 'successor,which may well only serve to continue to cause divisions between the two nations. It's Labour politicians that have have initiated the process of the rift, not the people themselves.

[Pielstick]

Thinking ahead, and wondering out loud...

If/when the time comes to vote in the HoC for an EU referendum, if you take it that the SNP are a pro-EU party, but that their best chance for another indy referendum is the prospect of the UK leaving the EU... how will the SNP with its 56 seats vote? Will they even matter?

Having been instrumental in creating a Scottish parliament,in a form which makes it a rival to Westminster, in an attempt to consolidate their own grip in Scotland (something they saw English regional assemblies would provide south of the Border) Labour have only served to stoke the fires of Scottish nationalism and are now paying the price. The Scottish Labour party can now only survive by being less controlled by Miliband's 'successor,which may well only serve to continue to cause divisions between the two nations. It's Labour politicians that have have initiated the process of the rift, not the people themselves.

I think you're right. It was Blair who created the devolved parliaments which gave the SNP the platform they needed. It was Blair's shift to centre ground politics and taking the Scottish vote for granted - something continued by his successors - that gave the SNP the opportunity they needed. Labour created the environment in which the SNP could thrive.

[Gatsby]

I think we have to consider that an EU referendum in itself is not the death knell for the Union - only a successful one.

Consider this scenario: SNP votes for a referendum on the EU, England decides it actually likes the EU. Now the most obvious way of getting an IndyRef is gone, and the SNP have appeared to want to drag Scotland out of the EU.

Thats two dangerous variables for the SNP to consider, and so I think that will dissuade them from supporting it.

[caratacus]

I think you're right. It was Blair who created the devolved parliaments which gave the SNP the platform they needed. It was Blair's shift to centre ground politics and taking the Scottish vote for granted - something continued by his successors - that gave the SNP the opportunity they needed. Labour created the environment in which the SNP could thrive.

Agreed, Labour facilitated the rise of the SNP in Scottish politics and today paid the price.

For Labour supporters out there, I would like to dedicate this song which was part of their 96 election campaign "Things can only get better" !! and after Blair and Brown's governance don't the rest of us know it and remember it!!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[6th Vigil]

I think we have to consider that an EU referendum in itself is not the death knell for the Union - only a successful one.

That or Scotland votes to leave the EU as well and thus renders the argument for another indy ref but that's as likely as electoral reform at this stage.

[Freddie]

Well this is my first post here in long time but the David Cameron Conservatives route of the socialist left has motivated to make a return and stick it to any lefty that crosses my path!

I can't tell you how great it feels to be a Conservative right now, free of the shackles of the Liberals we can finally put this country on the road to prosperity and common sense. Cut down the welfare bill and reduce government spending to around 30% of GDP would be a good target for the next 5 years of parliament, that should ensure steady, sustainable economic growth. A referendum on the EU will finally put the question of the Europe to bed for a good while no matter the outcome and the mere threat of the UK leaving may actual encourage the EU to get it's house in order. I'm not in favour of stopping immigration like some nutters on the right but I am in favour of having control over out boarders even within the EU and monitoring who is entering and leaving the country and being able to stop anyone entering who is a danger to the country.

- Replace the Human Rights Act
- Increase the tax free allowance
- Lower corporation tax
- Lower overall government spending to 30% of GDP
- EU referendum
- Sort out the BBC blatant left wing agenda
- Relax rules about protesting outside of parliament
- Less regulation on business
- Reduce the welfare bill (a big part of the above point on government spending)
- Hold a candle light vigil for the former Liberal Democrat MP's and Ed Balls

[Elmetiacos]

You could say the same is true for the people of North East England, that routinely votes in Labour MPs and as a consequence has been sidelined by both Conservative governments and Labour ones,although they appear to be slow to understand this! Despite this also, it was in NE England, that a regional assembly was offered by a Labour government and refused.

A regional assembly in name only, which was purely and simply a local government reorganisation dressed up as devolution. The proposed assembly took absolutely no powers away from Westminster.

A vote for the SNP in this election, should not automatically be taken as a vote to break away from the Union. The Tories aren't a unionist party, as their campaign have demonstrated and their popularity ratings in Scotland haven't changed substantially in over 30 years. What has changed however is the impetus of the Scottish Parliament has towards a greater say in deciding Scottish affairs, which has led to the growing strength of the SNP which has no interest in maintaining the Union and created an "us and them" viewpoint for many Scottish voters

Having been instrumental in creating a Scottish parliament,in a form which makes it a rival to Westminster, in an attempt to consolidate their own grip in Scotland (something they saw English regional assemblies would provide south of the Border) Labour have only served to stoke the fires of Scottish nationalism and are now paying the price. The Scottish Labour party can now only survive by being less controlled by Miliband's 'successor,which may well only serve to continue to cause divisions between the two nations. It's Labour politicians that have have initiated the process of the rift, not the people themselves.

The problem with this take is that it seems to assume the Scottish Parliament is a notion conjured from thin air by the Labour Party purely out of self interest. Realistically, how long could any government have held out against the growing demand for such a body - Scotland had already voted in favour of it in the 1979 rigged referendum in fact. Voting SNP in the Westminster election was predicated on a hung parliament, and on a hung parliament with a centre-left leaning at that. There isn't one. Scotland has written itself out of national politics: neither the Conservatives nor Labour now have any reason whatsoever to pay them any heed.

[Cope]

- Increase the tax free allowance ✓
- Lower corporation tax ✓
- Lower overall government spending to 30% of GDP ✓
- EU referendum ✓
- Sort out the BBC blatant left wing agenda ✓✓
- Relax rules about protesting outside of parliament ✓
- Less regulation on business ✓
- Reduce the welfare bill (a big part of the above point on government spending) ✓
- Hold a candle light vigil for the former Liberal Democrat MP's and Ed Balls ✓

[Azog 150]

FPTP is superior to PR because it allows for solidified government. Is it unfair that UKIP got one seat despite the fact that they got 4 million votes? Well yeah it is, but on the other hand, if we had had PR we'd be perpetually forced into weird and potentially dangerous coalitions which would enfranchise electoral minorities further than their voting share. In other words, it would be the same problem but in reverse. In this case we'd have a party which got 12% of the vote (ie UKIP) forcing their agenda onto a Conservative minority. In this way, manifesto's would become meaningless because the "dominant" party would have to cede large chucks of its agenda in order to secure the support of other parties.

As it stands we have electoral minorities forcing their agenda onto the entire country. The Conservatives have 36% of the vote, and a majority of seats. Despite only 36% of the population having voted for them, they will be forcing their agenda onto 100% of the population, including the 67% of people who didn't vote for them. You have to go back to the 1930's to find a party that won a majority of seats on a majority of the votes.

And as it stands manifestos are meaningless regardless. Under FPTP a party receiving a majority of seats basically has free reign to do what it wants regardless of its manifesto. Ruling parties have routinely broken manifesto pledges. So I don't think that argument holds weight either.

As it stands I would rather see a ruling coalition that represents the parties over 50% of the electorate voted for, even it means parties within that coalition having to make compromises with other parties in that coalition.

PR is going to become a big issue and already people are rallying behind it, and I am hopeful that we can see it achieved.

As for strong government, the Tory majority is wafer thin and there is going to be some massive issues that need to be dealt with over the next five years that will shape the future course of this country. We will see if it remains strong.

And many of these arguments defending FPTP sound like they come without any knowledge of whether or not PR can work. There are a myriad examples of country's that use PR that have been able to deliver strong and decisive government, coalition or otherwise.

Well this is my first post here in long time but the David Cameron Conservatives route of the socialist left has motivated to make a return and stick it to any lefty that crosses my path!

I can't tell you how great it feels to be a Conservative right now, free of the shackles of the Liberals we can finally put this country on the road to prosperity and common sense. Cut down the welfare bill and reduce government spending to around 30% of GDP would be a good target for the next 5 years of parliament, that should ensure steady, sustainable economic growth. A referendum on the EU will finally put the question of the Europe to bed for a good while no matter the outcome and the mere threat of the UK leaving may actual encourage the EU to get it's house in order. I'm not in favour of stopping immigration like some nutters on the right but I am in favour of having control over out boarders even within the EU and monitoring who is entering and leaving the country and being able to stop anyone entering who is a danger to the country.

- Replace the Human Rights Act
- Increase the tax free allowance
- Lower corporation tax
- Lower overall government spending to 30% of GDP
- EU referendum
- Sort out the BBC blatant left wing agenda
- Relax rules about protesting outside of parliament
- Less regulation on business
- Reduce the welfare bill (a big part of the above point on government spending)
- Hold a candle light vigil for the former Liberal Democrat MP's and Ed Balls

Is this satire?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Some have speculated a post Farage UKIP will be a struggle between "Red UKIP" characterised as former Labour voters in the north of England, and "Libertarian UKIP" characterised as former Tory voters in the south and east.

I think that would be an interesting struggle to watch and potentially game-changing for UK politics. Would you say such a split would result in a UKIP division> Or is it more likely an accord would be reached (both sides knowing UKIP as a party has a significant following) that will see either the domination of one side or a toned down version of both?

No they didn't. I have heard this many times and it annoys me to no end. AV was in no way, shape or form PR. AV was basically a modified FPTP. A PR referendum was never allowed by Tories or Labour because they knew it stood a very good chance at being voted through by the general public.

But yes I agree, FPTP is clearly unfit for purpose and I think we will see people really take up in support of PR now from both sides of the spectrum. One can hope anyway.

My bad here mate,your quite right actually now i think about it, it was AV vs FPTP- and AV if i remember rightly wasn't exactly any better in some ways. So apologies. Indeed though a PR campaign would be something i except to see now/hope at least for.

Also indeed PR is used in many states around the world to great affect, the 'weak' government idea doesn't hold water- since FPTP currently delivered a coalition (which if the lib-dems had decided to work with Labour could easily have gone the other way) and now a very weak majority government.

[Azog 150]

No need to apologise. It's just that the assumption that the population has already rejected PR because of the AV referendum comes up a surprising amount so it always gets me wound up! It's a shame it was not considered an issue by the general public back in 2010 because then the Lib Dems might have been in a better position to have gone into coalition negotiations with a PR referendum as a red line.

[Knight_Of_Ne]

Is it me or is this the best result we could have possibly gotten in terms of motivating actual change. All the major parties are leaderless and will now be scrambling to reinvent and resurrect themselves, FPTP has been thrown firmly into the spotlight as the broken system it is and best of all, everyone is genuinely shocked by the result. It all seems like the perfect opportunity to bring forward candidates and policies that will bring about actual beneficial change for every other party and the nation as a whole.

[Cope]

As it stands we have electoral minorities forcing their agenda onto the entire country. The Conservatives have 36% of the vote, and a majority of seats. Despite only 36% of the population having voted for them, they will be forcing their agenda onto 100% of the population, including the 67% of people who didn't vote for them. You have to go back to the 1930's to find a party that won a majority of seats on a majority of the votes.

If you want a stable and decisive government then this is what has to happen. Regardless of what you're opinions are, having a state which is crippled by its own inability to act in one direction or the other would paralyze the nation, especially in times of crisis. You'd end up with the smallest parties calling the shots in Parliament and holding the country to ransom over whatever demands they had.

And as it stands manifestos are meaningless regardless. Under FPTP a party receiving a majority of seats basically has free reign to do what it wants regardless of its manifesto. Ruling parties have routinely broken manifesto pledges. So I don't think that argument holds weight either.

Just because ruling parties occasionally break certain pledges for whatever reason, that doesn't mean that we should just say it and opt for a system where you literally have no idea what you're going to get from any party. You just end up with watered down policies that are ineffectual and satisfy no one.

As it stands I would rather see a ruling coalition that represents the parties over 50% of the electorate voted for, even it means parties within that coalition having to make compromises with other parties in that coalition.

All of the major parties fundamentally disagree with each other on the most important issues. The only people capable of going into coalition are the Lib Dems, unless you'd be happy with having the idiots from the Green Party and the SNP who live in the clouds when it comes to economic policy forming a god awful coalition of the socialist morons.

PR is going to become a big issue and already people are rallying behind it, and I am hopeful that we can see it achieved.

I doubt it. Every election we go over this for a week or so because some popular parties end up being poorly represented and then cry about it. Usually everyone /cares after a week or so though. We even had a referendum on AV in 2011, and most people didn't even bother going to vote, and vast majority of those who did voted no.

As for strong government, the Tory majority is wafer thin and there is going to be some massive issues that need to be dealt with over the next five years that will shape the future course of this country. We will see if it remains strong.

We will see.

And many of these arguments defending FPTP sound like they come without any knowledge of whether or not PR can work. There are a myriad examples of country's that use PR that have been able to deliver strong and decisive government, coalition or otherwise.

This works both ways. There are are a myriad of examples of instances where PR has been proven to be equally as unfair as FPTP and has inspired shockingly unstable governments. Wiemar Republic? Adolf Hitler? Ring any bells? Grass is always greener.





Is this satire?[/QUOTE]

[Azog 150]

This works both ways. There are are a myriad of examples of instances where PR has been proven to be equally as unfair as FPTP and has inspired shockingly unstable governments. Wiemar Republic? Adolf Hitler? Ring any bells? Grass is always greener.

Yeah you used this example last time. The fact you need to keep on going back to 1930's Germany as a reason why you don't want PR reeks of desperation.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Would be fascinated to hear how all our UKIPPERS voted in the AV referendum when they had a chance to do something about FPTP?

[IZob]

- Increase the tax free allowance ✓
- Lower corporation tax ✓
- Lower overall government spending to 30% of GDP ✓
- EU referendum ✓
- Sort out the BBC blatant left wing agenda ✓✓
- Relax rules about protesting outside of parliament ✓
- Less regulation on business ✓
- Reduce the welfare bill (a big part of the above point on government spending) ✓
- Hold a candle light vigil for the former Liberal Democrat MP's and Ed Balls ✓

I'd like to outline some results and agendas with the current conservative government in Australia, so that you know what to look forward to:

- Implemented a Climate change policy that scientist say, is a waste of money and will not work.
- No interest in improving the renewable energy target or the renewable energy industry.
- Little regard for local existing environments.
- An agenda to deregulate universities which would increase student fees and decrease the number of high skilled workers.
- Immoral illegal-immigration policies, "Detention centers" and immigrants sent to poorer Asian countries with an even worse UN record.
- On the matter of the UN, the government has almost no regard as to the UN opinion on most matters.
- Foreign aid budget slashed.
- Agenda to get the budget out of [a minor] deficit, by taxing (generally speaking) individuals/families but also cutting taxes for corporations (which is having an adverse effect).
- Infrastructure projects such as the NBN are put on hold, delayed or reduced significantly.
- Agenda to replace Government industries such as the military boat sector, for cheaper foreign work instead. Thus - Australia loses more jobs and is incapable of building its own hardware.
- Unemployment rate has remained at 6% since coming into office with no sign of reducing.
- Former agenda to decriminalize racial speech (might still be a current agenda, cant remember tbh).
- Defunding of remote aboriginal communities. Basically the reasoning why was: "It's their lifestyle choice" while at the same time, the government imposes rules to fulfill their "lifestyle choices".
- Deregulate corporations so that they can (for example) build CSG near peoples properties, rivers, lakes etc. Effectively risking environments to long term damage and putting public health at risk.
I'm sure there's other crap I can find.
- Masters of Economic management: Yet to be determined.