UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Been fecking manic with the website today and still got section of the mag to get through. Feel half-dead.
Well what is there left to say? They were rubbish and they have reaped what they have sown.
Voting on manifesto policies is flawed. Most of the decisions a government makes over a five year term involve reacting to the events and economic conditions that occur while they are in office, based on their ideology. As well as the obvious fact that clever parties leave out the more unpalatable policies from their manifesto (specific benefit cuts, NHS reorganisation etc).
To me it makes far more sense to try to elect people who broadly represent your world view and trust them to implement policies that reflect your position based on the information they have when in office. This idea that a manifesto is like a shopping catalogue where you read through to select policies you like is a big part of what's wrong with politics in my opinion. For a start, the average voter is not economically literate enough to judge whether the cumulative effect of changes to the tax and benefits systems are beneficial for them or the effect they will have at a macro level.
Parties should be judged on their ideals, the character and competence of their candidates and the sections of society they claim to represent (including their funding). The narrow retail pledges they make to the electorate should be seen in this context.
Nothing. Nothing left to say.
Indeed. Until the history books are written, and I'm definitely not writing them when I get my degree
Standard fate of every junior coalition partner, isn't it? They get blamed for not doing more to curtail the main party when there's no real way of knowing exactly how much they could have done. The fact that this "they sold out and did nothing" point of view is so common in these scenarios would probably make me question its validity. After all, if the LibDems could/should have done more then logically there should be a fair few examples of junior coalition partners who actually succeeded where they failed.
Probably still off his face from last night's election party or else he's rejigging the whole mag.
It's also easier to 'mistakenly' record votes wrongly when human beings are left to count millions of votes for hours on end.
Hacking concerns are mostly scaremongering. You could ensure that it was secure.
Good point, well made.
That's close to the system we have in the United States and it leads to gridlock and countless veto points. I think I prefer the idea of voting for a party.
So trying to think of some upside to all the election results. So far I have Rotherham didn't vote UKIP and being a nearly 50 year old, quite well off, white guy I'm probably going to be looked after for the next 5 years.
I dont agree with this, or not completely. Of course you need to look at their policies, I'm surprised anyone would say that.
I want PR, so I should vote for a party that supports it. If you want Nuclear Weapons scrapped, you should vote for a party that supports that. etc
Voting solely on ideals is great until the party betrays them, only the current incumbent is going to be able to show they are competent (or not). And voting for the sections of society they "claim to represent" is just going to lead to a working class party, upper class party, etc.
Indeed. Until the history books are written, and I'm definitely not writing them when I get my degree
They certainly wont let me be writing them with my 2/2 in history.
They probably did most just by being there, a counterbalance to the Tories' own right wing.
In The Economist leader today it suggested Cameron would actually have an easier job for the next term if he had been given exactly the same government as last time, because he had that counterweight. Whereas now he'll be dragged to the right in cuts and more crucially, potentially out of Europe by those in his party who care more about leaving Europe than they do about being in office.
Labour made this exact error imo. They had a bunch of isolated policies, some of which made sense and some of which were a bit silly. But I never got a sense of a coherent vision from them, no sense of what their mission is.
But how can anyone be sure? How does anyone know that Russia haven't hacked it? The election papers at least have lots of eyeballs on, and it would require an incredibly complex task to steal/change hundreds of ballot boxes.
And they can also be recounted.
This is very true, and a reason I didnt vote for them
I graduated in 99. My exams started a few weeks after we won the treble. I was distracted, let's leave it at that.I'll be lucky to get that despite good coursework grades
I am advocating voting for a party but not selecting the party based on what policies they promise you every five years.
That was a long time ago, those are my earliest memories of United
But more based on the leadership of the party?
I wish I was in that position.
Not necessarily based on the leadership but on what and who the party stands for.
One positive thing - women now make up 43% of Labour's parliamentary party, up 10% on 2010.
If you are genuinely a narrow single issue voter then clearly it doesn't apply to you. (Though I would suggest you may have more luck joining the major party that best represents your other views and campaigning for change from within rather than standing outside the process).
Yes, that's how it should be. The wants and needs of different classes and sections of society are where the main divergence of political ideals will be found.
I think that's true of pretty much everyone. As much as everyone moans about "them rich people not paying their way", how many people seriously give a decent portion of their salary to charity? I wonder how many of the hard Labour supporters on here who earn £30k+ give a few thousand pounds a year to help the food banks or other charities to help the poor. I'd assert that the statistic would be very low; it's human nature to only look at yourself and your close circle when making a decision such as voting. That's why poor areas are dominated by Labour supporters, because they think they deserve more. It's no more or less selfish than rich people historically voting Tory.
That's why far more people voted for the Tories than Labour, because things aren't as grim in this country as people would have you believe and are certainly better for the majority of people than they were 5 years ago. Certainly in the Midlands I predicted a lot of Tory holds in areas that were apparently an imminent swing to Labour; the simple reason being that a hell of a lot of people that did not have and could not get a job in 2010 now have a job. These people will have either mindfully or subliminally linked themselves being in work and better off with the Conservative government.
That's why all the mistakes of the previous Labour government that were often wholly backed by the Conservatives have only hurt the former, as they were the ones tied to the policies. This is how are politics works though:
- Labour are blamed for overspending even though both parties committed to overspending.
- Labour are good for the NHS, Tories are bad. Even though both have committed to similar spending on the NHS.
- The Conservatives have increased minimum wage by 3% a year which would have it at around £7.75 by 2020, along with doubling the tax free allowance, but they're the party who hate the working classes. Labour have merely committed to £8 an hour which would have less effect but they are the party for the working classes.
- The Tories only look after their rich mates. Even though the top 1% of earners are paying more tax than ever: 30%, versus 25% in 2007. Not only this but the gap between the top 20% and everyone else has been steadily on the rise since the 70's, irrespective of who governed the Country.
- Labour are anti-business, even though I haven't actually heard why this is? A couple of % difference in corporation tax that most companies find a way around anyway?
All done, I never expected anything like this.
Unbelievable Geoff!
Unbelievable Geoff!
What position? I can't afford to vote the way I do, yet I do anyway.
That's why I have to laugh at Lib Dems trying to position themselves somewhere in the middle of Labour and Conservatives. They definitely don't suffer from claustrophobia!
This is completely backwards in my opinion.
If there was 1 massive working class party and 1 massive middle class party and 1 massive upper class party, then obviously the upper class party was always lose, and the lower class party would run the country for the lower class only.
Instead, what we have is 3 main parties who try to do what is best for the WHOLE of Britain. Which is how it should be.
And "If you are genuinely a narrow single issue voter then clearly it doesn't apply to you." You can care about individual issues AND care about voting for a party that best represents your view and best represents your area etc.
The Monster Raving Loony Party got 263 votes in my constituency, quite impressed with that.
So true! I thought the "heart to a Conservative, brain to a Labour" quote was also pretty funny. "Give us a few votes and we'll get into bed with anyone", those licentious devils.
Well you clearly can then
But in all seriousness I have two little boys and an employee with a young family and as much as I'd love to get all political and vote Labour just because, I didn't for the first time ever. Plus the fear I had that this Labour would be a bad government anyway, but that's just my personal opinion.
Disgruntled LibDem voters presumably ;-)
I never heard them talk about anything distinctive or positive about what they wanted to do. Nothing about a more enlightened approach to criminal justice or drugs policy, making hay out of the controversy around internet snooping, anything the Lib Dems traditionally feel passionate about.
I think they would have ended up being murdered last night whatever they did but part of me wonders what might have happened if they had talked about these issued rather than basically saying, what sounded to me like: "We dont care who gets in, we'll be anyone's bitch."
It was so frustrating. I know those traditional policy areas are not the kind of things that capture the imagination of the majority in this country but for the traditional Lib Dem voter could it have been enough to encourage them to stick with them, minimising the losses? I think it might, for me the people who care about those issues really care about them, and they are the issues the Lib Dems actually have something different to say about.
So Farage has left himself an out, he could yet be leader of the party once more. Suzanne Matthews is more likely however.
This is very true.
When people who tax dodge are getting knighted, there isn't much hope... but why not go the other way? Why isn't there an "optional" (but default) 1% tax on those earning over £50k? You can choose not to pay it but then can't be knighted, etc.
Oh, because no one would pay it.
They have dropped the 50p tax though havent they?
Thinking I'm glad I don't live in the UK anymore but then realised that I live in the US.
I'm going to look into Venezuela.
I'm going to look into Venezuela.
Not sure I agree with that. The Tories certainly don't do what is best for the whole of Britain. That was never more evident than when she was in charge.