UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

How did you vote in the 2015 General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 67 20.0%
  • Labour

    Votes: 152 45.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 15 4.5%
  • Green

    Votes: 23 6.9%
  • SNP

    Votes: 9 2.7%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 11 3.3%
  • Independent

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Did not vote

    Votes: 43 12.8%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 4 1.2%
  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 9 2.7%

  • Total voters
    335
  • Poll closed .
I agree with what you say, but I know that I am still one of those people.

You know, to be honest, I am all for a wealth tax. A nice wealth tax of.. I don't know... 1% on all wealth over £1,000,000? Sounds great. Even if it took little more than the cost to run it, as long as people didn't leave the country because of it (which they would), it would be good.

But let's imagine for a moment that no one will leave the country, and it will employ 10,000 people to enforce, and effectively bring in nothing.

1) You are reducing the gap between rich and poor. The growing gap between the top 1% and the bottom 50% is going to be a major problem in the next 20 years.
2) You are employing 10,000 people. Thats 10k new jobs, 10k people off of jobs seekers (maybe), etc.

It doesnt work in practice, but in theory, it's great.

I think everyone is to some degree one of those people, I myself find myself thinking the bedroom tax makes sense but often have to snap out of it and think: it only makes sense if it raises a good amount of cash; why cause unnecessary pain and grief for very little gain? Agreed a wealth tax would be fine in theory, but as you say wouldn't really achieve anything.

Even as a business owner myself I would prefer to see a turnover tax. Forget taxable profits whereby a company can turnover £50b and reduce their tax liabilities to £500k; tax them at the source, their unmanipulatable turnover. I read that companies in the UK turnover over £3.5 trillion a year vs the c. £51b they pay in corporation tax, that works out at less than 1.5% of turnover being taxed.

What's the betting that smaller companies end up paying far more than 1.5% of their turnover in the form of corporation tax, whereas larger companies are paying much, much less? I remember a statistic saying Starbucks had paid around £8.5m corporation tax in over 15 years on a turnover over £5b. That can't be right.
 
Yeah, I think most everyone agrees with that. But the only thing we can do is encourage more awareness. Any attempts to make it a requirement will be abused and will disenfranchise the poor/minorities.
Absolutely, the last thing I want is less people voting, infact as others have said Id have no issue with it being compulsory, as long as there is at least a none of the above option if none of the candidates apeal to you. A good start would be introducing politics into the curriculum for secondary schools.
 
I think the lib dems are suffering big time from their decision to feck students over, I was studying when they got into power with the conservatives and betrayed all those 'written pledges' regarding tuition fee's, Even some of my strongest supporting lib dem friends said they'd never vote for Clegg again after that. Something I agreed with.

Would possibly have voted labour if the other Miliband was elected leader, Ed is far far too left wing for me. If they'd gone more towards the centre (oh and admitted they overspent when in power last) I would have voted for labour. I dislike Cameron but given a choice between Red Ed and Dull Dave, I'll take the safe option every time.
 
I think the lib dems are suffering big time from their decision to feck students over, I was studying when they got into power with the conservatives and betrayed all those 'written pledges' regarding tuition fee's, Even some of my strongest supporting lib dem friends said they'd never vote for Clegg again after that. Something I agreed with.

Would possibly have voted labour if the other Miliband was elected leader, Ed is far far too left wing for me. If they'd gone more towards the centre (oh and admitted they overspent when in power last) I would have voted for labour. I dislike Cameron but given a choice between Red Ed and Dull Dave, I'll take the safe option every time.

How do you align your own personal morals with voting for a party that oversaw the rise of foodbanks in a developed nation?
 
Last time around did the lib-dems pick up their seats because of tory voters switching to them or was it labour voters? They used to be the less-nutty version of labour when complete nuclear disarmament and other muttiness was on the labour manifesto.
 
@Damien

I have been receiving DLA for its new equivalent for fourteen years, and whilst i have not had to make a visitation to Atos i know that some of my benefits could be streamlined or made more flexible. I also recall one assessor encouraging me to exaggerate my circumstances, although that was some while back and procedures will have changed even under Labour.
 
I think everyone is to some degree one of those people, I myself find myself thinking the bedroom tax makes sense but often have to snap out of it and think: it only makes sense if it raises a good amount of cash; why cause unnecessary pain and grief for very little gain? Agreed a wealth tax would be fine in theory, but as you say wouldn't really achieve anything.

Even as a business owner myself I would prefer to see a turnover tax. Forget taxable profits whereby a company can turnover £50b and reduce their tax liabilities to £500k; tax them at the source, their unmanipulatable turnover. I read that companies in the UK turnover over £3.5 trillion a year vs the c. £51b they pay in corporation tax, that works out at less than 1.5% of turnover being taxed.

What's the betting that smaller companies end up paying far more than 1.5% of their turnover in the form of corporation tax, whereas larger companies are paying much, much less? I remember a statistic saying Starbucks had paid around £8.5m corporation tax in over 15 years on a turnover over £5b. That can't be right.
A turnover tax would be great. None of this "British Gas paying £100bn to their parent company who are in Luxembourg for "advising" or some shit.

But as you say, it doesnt work. But it would be great.
 
Is this a soggy biscuit at boarding school story?

A banker, a builder and a benefit claimant are sitting at a table when the waiter brings over a plate with lots of biscuits on it. The banker grabs the plate and starts shovelling the biscuits in his mouth, one or two of them missing his mouth completely and being wasted on the dirty floor.

He puts the plate back on the table, and notices in the corner of his eye that there's one biscuit still intact on the floor. He then turns to the builder, points at it, and says "You better watch out for that benefit cheat, I think he might try and steal your biscuit."
 
@Damien

I have been receiving DLA for its new equivalent for fourteen years, and whilst i have not had to make a visitation to Atos i know that some of my benefits could be streamlined or made more flexible. I also recall one assessor encouraging me to exaggerate my circumstances, although that was some while back and procedures will have changed even under Labour.

Yeah I made that post before seeing your post on receiving DLA a few pages ago, sorry about that. Was a post stemming from the anger of what I've experienced personally and with Atos being replaced by Maximus and the £12bn welfare cuts, I can only see the worst right now.

I've not experienced the assessor encouraging to exaggerate circumstances thing though sadly I'm sure there are many out there who do.
 
Indeed, thank god for the lib dems. But they still did it. Probably for economical reasons too. The economy slows down when the average man and women doesn't have money to spend on goods and services. But they still did it.


A 2.5% rise in VAT? That hits everyone who spends, not just the working class.

By my calculations (not taking into account interest and anything like that), the personal allowance increased by £2,965 in the last parliament. But let's call it £2,500. That's £2,500 that is no longer being taxed at 20%. £500 saved?

To spend that £500 on a VAT rise of 2.5%, that man/women would have to spend £500/0.025 = £20,000 on VAT-able goods. Per year.

The lower income people don't earn £20,000 so it's a moot point. From my maths... I think it helped the poor.

The other thing you forgot to mention is that the rise in VAT doesn't affect the items lower income people spend most of their money on e.g. food, travel, heat & light, children's clothes etc. Like you said also, they would be spending a lot more money than they apparently earn, in which case they are tax evaders and should be locked up with the rich tax evaders.
 
The other thing you forgot to mention is that the rise in VAT doesn't affect the items lower income people spend most of their money on e.g. food, travel, heat & light, children's clothes etc. Like you said also, they would be spending a lot more money than they apparently earn, in which case they are tax evaders and should be locked up with the rich tax evaders.


Give the tories a few years and it will.
 
That is remarkable.

It's incredible. Shows that the FPTP system is just ridiculously unfair. Has to be changed, even if people go on about this "strong government" stuff.
 
Damn, 5 years of Cameron is not going to be good. How many people on zero hours contracts will there be by then?

A lot of people who wanted Labour to win didn't even get up and vote
 
It's incredible. Shows that the FPTP system is just ridiculously unfair. Has to be changed, even if people go on about this "strong government" stuff.
I don't think it will now. Because of that, delivering strong governments. If it had been a hung parliament, as predicted, that point would be redundant. But it wasn't so FPTP has delivered what it usually does and as such the tories will continue to defend it.
 
I have to apologize before I ask this stupid question. I'm an American who understands the American electoral quite well (at least I like to think I do), but really haven't the foggiest idea of how it works in Britain. So, I must ask:

Do you vote for the man or the party?

Allow me to explain why I ask this. In the US, we vote for the man (or woman, of course). Whoever wins the most votes in that particular district wins the election. Most voters do vote for the man because of his party affiliation, but there is no proportional representation allocation in a particular legislature based on the partisan vote tallies in that electoral jurisdiction. Do you Brits go PR or is it first-past-the-post, which is what political scientists here in the US describe our system (apart from the potus election, which of course is run through the electoral college) as?
 
I don't think it will now. Because of that, delivering strong governments. If it had been a hung parliament, as predicted, that point would be redundant. But it wasn't so FPTP has delivered what it usually does and as such the tories will continue to defend it.

Yeah, it's shite, but UKIP could be the saving grace for reform in that it's ridiculous how little they've gotten with so little of the vote. It makes the whole thing look like a bit of a farce.
 
what's that? ps. both links have the word 'commentary' in them

:lol:

Let's gauge the accuracy of an argument by referring to the section of the website the article is in. Fantastic logic. If this were a passable argument, I shouldn't read anything on Economic Times because it's the Economic Times. If you know your India affairs, the author of the first paper I linked is no joke. He has consistently talked about the need for a coherent energy policy, whether it was the UPA or the NDA. He played a huge role in exposing Reliance's thievery and the rampant cronyism under the UPA.

Again, I'd love to talk about this, especially on energy since I work in the sector, but it isn't fair to talk about Indian issues on a thread about the UK. If there were a thread on Indian affairs, I'd love to talk more.
 
I can't see the Lib Dems ever recovering from this. I'm also somewhat bemused that Jim Murphy has not done the honourable thing and stood down as Labour leader of Scotland.
 
I have to apologize before I ask this stupid question. I'm an American who understands the American electoral quite well (at least I like to think I do), but really haven't the foggiest idea of how it works in Britain. So, I must ask:

Do you vote for the man or the party?

Allow me to explain why I ask this. In the US, we vote for the man (or woman, of course). Whoever wins the most votes in that particular district wins the election. Most voters do vote for the man because of his party affiliation, but there is no proportional representation allocation in a particular legislature based on the partisan vote tallies in that electoral jurisdiction. Do you Brits go PR or is it first-past-the-post, which is what political scientists here in the US describe our system (apart from the potus election, which of course is run through the electoral college) as?

You vote for the individual in your constituency and it's first past the post. For example SNP 1.5 million votes for 56 seats, Lib Dems 2.5 million votes for 8 seats, UKIP 3.7 million votes for 1 seat.
 
I can't see the Lib Dems ever recovering from this. I'm also somewhat bemused that Jim Murphy has not done the honourable thing and stood down as Labour leader of Scotland.
Surely they will in some form. The Liberal party traces it's roots back to the Whigs, they've been around as long as parliamentary democracy has existed in this country though in various different forms. The Lib Dems may die but some fragment of it will be salvaged and will be born again in another guise.
 
I'm starting to feel a fair few, and by a fair few, I mean a lot, voted for the cons, weren't overly vocal about it....and are now just jumping on the backlash bandwagon to save face. Pretty much all of the areas I deal with did indeed get Labour seats, but the feedback, you wouldn't believe it was as close as it was. Not many are really coming out and saying "glad we won" on a overall basis despite losing the local seat. Odd. Very different to 2010 from a personal perspective anyway.
 
You vote for the individual in your constituency and it's first past the post. For example SNP 1.5 million votes for 56 seats, Lib Dems 2.5 million votes for 8 seats, UKIP 3.7 million votes for 1 seat.

Pretty straightforward stuff. Thanks!

What is the estimated percentage of eligible voters who actually voted?

In the US it's typically fairly low and in California, it's abysmally low -- in November 2014 it was about 42%
 
I'm starting to feel a fair few, and by a fair few, I mean a lot, voted for the cons, weren't overly vocal about it....and are now just jumping on the backlash bandwagon to save face. Pretty much all of the areas I deal with did indeed get Labour seats, but the feedback, you wouldn't believe it was as close as it was. Not many are really coming out and saying "glad we won" on a overall basis despite losing the local seat. Odd. Very different to 2010 from a personal perspective anyway.

I'd wager a big part of it is due to abuse and labelling from more left wing voters, I know amongst people in my age group anyone showing a preference towards the Tories would get absolutely slaughtered.

I wouldn't say its the only factor but its certainly a reason people my age keep it under wraps.
 
Pretty straightforward stuff. Thanks!

What is the estimated percentage of eligible voters who actually voted?

In the US it's typically fairly low and in California, it's abysmally low -- in November 2014 it was about 42%

Turnout was 66% I think, generally higher in Scotland and lower in England.
 
If you're a Labour voter at least you can cheer yourself up by finally having proof that Manchester is red.

manisred_zpsi42t2kng.png