UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority

[rcoobc]

No democratic system can guarantee that more then 51% of its constituents get their wish.

Besides, when the specifics of possible coalitions aren't known before an election, its questionable exactly how many people would get the outcome they desire under a PR system. Voting Tory is different from voting Tory-UKIP coalition, just as voting Labour is different from voting Labour-SNP coalition.

I agree, and said similarly previously. In this election 35% of people got the government they wanted. Last time, no one did.

But what you said isn't quite true. Under AV or Instant Run Off type systems, the champion ends up with around 50%+ of the vote.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Not sure. 2010 at least resulted in a coalition where the two parties involved had well over 50% of the vote, although the Lib Dems were still criminally under-represented in that election.

So we got a govt no one wanted expected or voted for and that is the pinnacle of democracy. It was so loved that the Lib Dems were destroyed at the next election being set back 100 years.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I agree, and said similarly previously. In this election 35% of people got the government they wanted. Last time, no one did.

But what you said isn't quite true. Under AV or Instant Run Off type systems, the champion ends up with around 50%+ of the vote.

No he/she doesn't, well you can pretend he does when every ones second preference(etc) is counted. That is not their choice though is it? their first preference is their choice.

 

[rcoobc]

No he/she doesn't, well you can pretend he does when every ones second preference(etc) is counted. That is not their choice though is it? their first preference is their choice.

It is their choice. How is it not their choice? In the end they are choosing between the Tories and Labour as we all are.

Hence the Telegraph and the Guardian having tactical voting guides (see above).

We only have two choices. Labour. Or Tories.

STV lets you say what you WANT (Greens, UKIP, etc) and then lets you say your choice (Labour or Tories)

Choice:

an act or instance of choosing; selection:
Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/choice?s=t

 

[rcoobc]

My dad offers me a new car. I wanted a Ferrari F50 as driven by Ronaldo and Tom Cruise. My dad told me not to be an idiot, he wasn't going to pay for that. I instead chose a purple Ford KA

 

[bishblaize]

I agree, and said similarly previously. In this election 35% of people got the government they wanted. Last time, no one did.

But what you said isn't quite true. Under AV or Instant Run Off type systems, the champion ends up with around 50%+ of the vote.

They get 50% of the vote, but that isnt the same as 50% of what people wanted.

Look at the last Labour leadership election - regular members voted for David Milliband, the Union voted for Ed Balls - we ended up with Ed Milliband, the candidate that no-one wanted.

(Though I guess the Unions got the first name they wanted and regular members the surname they wanted..)

 

[soap]

Really though the flaws are there because we are flawed and no system can help us with that.

Cop out. "Let's not bother fixing this obviously outdated and unfair system cos the other one will probably not be perfect either".

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

It is their choice. How is it not their choice? In the end they are choosing between the Tories and Labour as we all are.

Hence the Telegraph and the Guardian having tactical voting guides (see above).

We only have two choices. Labour. Or Tories.

STV lets you say what you WANT (Greens, UKIP, etc) and then lets you say your choice (Labour or Tories)

The only reason that it ends up looking that way is that the other parties can't persuade enough people to vote for them.


I don't want to go around and around in circles with you but you don't seem to be able to accept that we don't have a majority of people supporting any one party. If we did they would be in power.

We still need a government.

Whatever system you propose to try to mask this fact just complicates the matter. We still don't agree on who should lead us we just pretend that getting 51% of second preference votes makes everything OK and more democratic. It doesn't.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Annoying that this poll doesn't say who voted for what. I really need to know which 11 caftards voted UKIP...

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Cop out. "Let's not bother fixing this obviously outdated and unfair system cos the other one will probably not be perfect either".

The cop out would be looking at the flaws of one system and not the rest. Then deciding to change it without having a replacement which carries the majority support of the people who will be using it. Whenever we have this debate the argument for the new system explodes, just like it did four years ago. Then every election someone feels but hurt by the result which will always be the case and this shit starts up again.

 

[rcoobc]

I don't want to go around and around in circles with you but you don't seem to be able to accept that we don't have a majority of people supporting any one party. If we did they would be in power.

We still need a government.

Whatever system you propose to try to mask this fact just complicates the matter. We still don't agree on who should lead us we just pretend that getting 51% of second preference votes makes everything OK and more democratic. It doesn't.

In your opinion. In the opinion on the electoral reform society, the European Union, practically every University in the world and most academics, it does.

Let's pretend we had round by round voting.

"Out of the following, who would you like to vote for: Greens, UKIP, Lib Dems, Labour, Conservatives".

Greens get the lowest vote, they drop out.

"Out of the following, who would you like to vote for: UKIP, Lib Dems, Labour, Conservatives".

Lib Dems get the lowest vote, they drop out.

"Out of the following, who would you like to vote for: UKIP, Labour, Conservatives".

UKIP gets the lowest vote, they drop out.

"Out of the following, who would you like to vote for: Labour, Conservatives".

Conservatives get the lowest vote, they drop out.

Are you going to try and pretend that that is somehow anti-democratic? Really?

 

[Ubik]

Annoying that this poll doesn't say who voted for what. I really need to know which 11 caftards voted UKIP...

Fingers crossed we won't have to worry about it much longer, we may be witnessing the party's self-destruction at the moment.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Fingers crossed we won't have to worry about it much longer, we may be witnessing the party's self-destruction at the moment.

I wasn't aware of that. Excellent.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

In your opinion. In the opinion on the electoral reform society, the European Union, practically every University in the world and most academics, it does.

Let's pretend we had round by round voting.


Are you going to try and pretend that that is somehow anti-democratic? Really?

No more or less democratic than the current system based on constituencies or any other system.

Lets use the EU as an example then. If you ask the question is the EU well governed what do you think the majority of people in the EU would answer?

 

[Cheesy]

So we got a govt no one wanted expected or voted for and that is the pinnacle of democracy. It was so loved that the Lib Dems were destroyed at the next election being set back 100 years.

Never at any point did I say this.

What I'm saying was that, while it had its problems, it was at least slightly fairer than this one we have now. If I was looking for an election that was fully representative of democratic opinion, I'd probably struggle to find one.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Never at any point did I say this.

What I'm saying was that, while it had its problems, it was at least slightly fairer than this one we have now. If I was looking for an election that was fully representative of democratic opinion, I'd probably struggle to find one.

Me too, but I guess the closest would be voting measure by measure, policy by policy to be truly democratic. That of course would be a disaster in terms of being governed which is my whole point about approaching things backwards. Its the best most likely to be successful Government we want not a perfect system that ruins us.

 

[Cheesy]

Me too, but I guess the closest would be voting measure by measure, policy by policy to be truly democratic. That of course would be a disaster in terms of being governed which is my whole point about approaching things backwards. Its the best most likely to be successful Government we want not a perfect system that ruins us.

Yeah, but Robo has presented a very detailed case as to why STV can provide you with a very successful, accountable government, and is also an excellent system.

 

[Ubik]

Wonder if he'll call a by-election this time.

 

[rcoobc]

No more or less democratic than the current system based on constituencies or any other system.

Lets use the EU as an example then. If you ask the question is the EU well governed what do you think the majority of people in the EU would answer?

Okay, good. STV and AV are shortened versions of that. As I always said, FPTP has its merits.

The EU is badly governed for sure. But the reasons the nations chose PR was both for idealistic and real-world reasons. Can you imagine if we had FPTP for the European Elections? 80% of our MEPs would have been UKIPs lot. Nothing would get passed in European law.

 

[bishblaize]

Fingers crossed we won't have to worry about it much longer, we may be witnessing the party's self-destruction at the moment.

A UKIP self-destruct now would have unforeseen consequences. They've taken votes from most of the other parties, very hard to know where those votes would go now.

 

[Ubik]

A UKIP self-destruct now would have unforeseen consequences. They've taken votes from most of the other parties, very hard to know where those votes would go now.

Yup, I'll just be glad if they're gone though. I imagine Tories would get a short term boost, not sure about Lib Dems.

 

[Cheesy]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...ays-of-ed-did-ed-miliband-sacrifice-ed-balls/

Article here about the Labour campaign, which paints it in a rather disastrous light. How much of it is true is obviously unknown, though.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Okay, good. STV and AV are shortened versions of that. As I always said, FPTP has its merits.

The EU is badly governed for sure. But the reasons the nations chose PR was both for idealistic and real-world reasons. Can you imagine if we had FPTP for the European Elections? 80% of our MEPs would have been UKIPs lot. Nothing would get passed in European law.

STV has its own problems.

People need the result to be transparent and STV isn't. Imagine a case where a candidate gets massively more votes than all the others and near the 50% mark. Then after all the other candidates bar one is eliminated he/she loses. Endless complicated recounts later taking days and days, everyone is looking at the candidate elected and wondering how the hell they got in when very few people actually wanted them.

It is by any measure hideously complicated and it is untried in UK general elections so god knows what would actually happen. My understanding of it is it needs larger constituencies to work and that means messing with the boundaries even more than we already do, I suspect that would be controversial.

The biggest problem though by far is it doesn't have the support of the people you propose using it.

If we were to introduce this change we would probably need to use it in local elections so everyone got used to it or even better use it for electing the house of Lords you can't ruin the elective process for that.

 

[bishblaize]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...ays-of-ed-did-ed-miliband-sacrifice-ed-balls/

Article here about the Labour campaign, which paints it in a rather disastrous light. How much of it is true is obviously unknown, though.

Hearing similar stories left, right and centre (ahem) at the moment so it wouldn't surprise me.

What I find most interesting at the moment is the difference between the predictions and the outcome. Obviously people make all sorts of predictions & those who predicted the Tories would win are the ones making the most noise. But it does genuinely seem that the Tories had a sense they were going to win outright, while that was totally unforeseen in the Labour camp.

 

[Ubik]

Should be noted about that Spectator article that it's by Dan Hodges, who hates Ed Miliband only slightly less than Tories hate Ed Balls. It also doesn't make much coherent sense, it reports the Labour internal pollster's recent statements about things looking much more negative than the public polls suggested, then doubts that account by stating they were very bullish about Ed's chances all along, then says Ed knew about the bad polls recently and was aware Balls would lose his seat - BUT STILL expected to be in number 10. Ed Balls doesn't lose his seat if Labour get enough seats to form a government, this is obvious. There are a lot of conflicting stories around at the moment, usually being fanned by those who really want them to be true, but I'd be skeptical of anything that paints either side in too good or bad a light.

 

[peterstorey]

Dan Hodges is a joke.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...ays-of-ed-did-ed-miliband-sacrifice-ed-balls/

Article here about the Labour campaign, which paints it in a rather disastrous light. How much of it is true is obviously unknown, though.

That's hilarious. Makes you appreciate 'The Thick of It' even more.

Then one day someone got the message, “Excellent. All good.” But when they went to respond they realised they’d failed to insert the original attachment. All the time, Ed’s team had been signing off the leaflets without bothering to look at them.’

Another Labour insider told of the scene in the press office when Miliband posed with the notorious Ed stone, the 8ft 6in slab of limestone upon which his six key election pledges were inscribed. When it appeared on TV, a press officer ‘started screaming. He stood in the office, just screaming over and over again at the screen. It was so bad they thought he was having a breakdown.’

 

[berbatrick]

@Don't Kill Bill

FPTP system. 200 seat house. 2 major parties and some minor parties strong in a few seats.
One party with 46%, the other with 34%.
First gets 163 seats, second gets 21.
Do you think that is a fair outcome?


OR:

80 seats. 4-way contest with 3 strong parties and the 4th having a few regions of strength and some core voters who never seem to leave.
Voteshare:
I: 43%.
II: 22%
III: 19%
IV: 10%.

Seats:
I- 73 seats
II- 5
III- 0
IV- 2.

Bear in mind that the 1st party would never align with the other 3 while II and III (themselves mortal enemies) had together externally supported a government led by IV.

 

[rcoobc]

STV has its own problems.

People need the result to be transparent and STV isn't. Imagine a case where a candidate gets massively more votes than all the others and near the 50% mark. Then after all the other candidates bar one is eliminated he/she loses. Endless complicated recounts later taking days and days, everyone is looking at the candidate elected and wondering how the hell they got in when very few people actually wanted them.

When you say "candidate" are you talking about a constituency candidate trying to become an MP? Because if so, you are again showing that you don't know what you are talking about. And thats a rather big problem when trying to discuss it.

In your example, the candidate would immediately be elected. Before anything else happens, they are elected as an MP and can celebrate whilst everyone else is worrying about their future.

As for this bit: "Endless complicated recounts later taking days and days, everyone is looking at the candidate elected and wondering how the hell they got in when very few people actually wanted them." None of that is true either. STV could easily be counted overnight, just like the current FPTP system.

 

[rcoobc]

We had an referendum on PR very recently

24 hours ago the argument was if FPTP can't deliver a majority Govt we should change from FPTP. Now it has and we get this type of argument.

We had a referendum on this and FPTP won easily.

Who cares there are two simple systems. FPTP and PR. Both have major strengths and weaknesses.

STV has its own problems.

People need the result to be transparent and STV isn't. Imagine a case where a candidate gets massively more votes than all the others and near the 50% mark. Then after all the other candidates bar one is eliminated he/she loses.

This is getting silly.

 

[rcoobc]

That AV No Campaign still makes me angry. So many lies. So many atrocious horrendous lies.

And people were taken in by them.

 

[GloryHunter07]

Looks like Ukip are turning on eachother. Good.

 

[Cheesy]

When you say "candidate" are you talking about a constituency candidate to try to be an MP? Because if so, you are again showing that you don't know what you are talking about. And thats a rather big problem when trying to discuss it.

In your example, the candidate would immediately be elected. Before anything else happens, they are elected as an MP and can celebrate whilst everyone else is worrying about their future status.

As for this bit: "Endless complicated recounts later taking days and days, everyone is looking at the candidate elected and wondering how the hell they got in when very few people actually wanted them." none of that is true either. STV could easily be counted overnight, just like the current FPTP system.

It appears he doesn't really understand STV, but believes he's in a position to just brush everyone who happens to disagree with him off.

 

[rcoobc]

I'm so confused by this devolution to cities idea...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32726171

Is Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Essex, going to come under London?

Obviously Oxfordshire would come under Oxford, and Berkshire come under Reading, and so on....

But there is nowhere South East of London fit and capable or running a "state".. Dover? Maidstone? Tonbridge Wells? Lewes? Yet we are as different from London as London is from Ipswich is in my opinion.

The same goes for North East of London as well.

If it's just Cities controlling their spending, then that's fine, but thats hardly the equal of what Scotland have, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[naturalized]

Hearing similar stories left, right and centre (ahem) at the moment so it wouldn't surprise me.

What I find most interesting at the moment is the difference between the predictions and the outcome. Obviously people make all sorts of predictions & those who predicted the Tories would win are the ones making the most noise. But it does genuinely seem that the Tories had a sense they were going to win outright, while that was totally unforeseen in the Labour camp.

Not all the polls were as far off - the Tories were using Jim Messina, the pollster they borrowed from Obama. And while even he couldn't predict the sheer scale of the Tory landslide, he was significantly closer at 312 or so. The Americans really do have polling down to an exact science, it seems.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...e-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/

 

[rcoobc]

Not all the polls were as far off - the Tories were using Jim Messina, the pollster they borrowed from Obama. And while even he couldn't predict the sheer scale of the Tory landslide, he was significantly closer at 312 or so. The Americans really do have polling down to an exact science, it seems.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...e-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/

Whats funny is that, in the Tony Blair era it was always Labour that had campaigning down to a science. In the 2005 general election, despite a huge drop in support, Labour still took 150 more seats than the Tories from an extra 3%. Labour had less percentage of the vote in '05 than the Tories had in '10, but took 145 more seats than they did then!

Labour really seem to have dropped the ball. The Tories have picked it up and ran with it.

 

[naturalized]

Whats funny is that, in the Tony Blair era it was always Labour that had campaigning down to a science. In the 2005 general election, despite a huge drop in support, Labour still took 150 more seats than the Tories from an extra 3%. Labour had less percentage of the vote in '05 than the Tories had in '10, but took 145 more seats than they did then!

Labour really seem to have dropped the ball. The Tories have picked it up and ran with it.

As a semi-interested outsider who was following the election pretty closely, I distinctly remember thinking when I heard the Tories had managed to sign Messina (a US Democrat widely considered top of his game) that it seemed to be suggestive of a wider problem with Labour, that they were intent on running a ideologically pure campaign and not take one single step out of their ideological comfort zone. Now obviously 1. pollsters put money first and ideology second and 2. the centre of gravity in US politics is significantly different from that in Britain, but it seemed even then to me like a personnel problem that was symptomatic of a wider policy problem.

 

[Ubik]

This UKIP thing is amazing, you've now got their top two donors on opposite factions calling for the other lot to resign. Farage is their best chance of electoral success, but has also unquestionably mounted a coup to remain leader which, for a democratic party, isn't terribly wise and just ties them ever closer to fascism. I can't see the types in UKIP being overly fond of reconciliation and compromise, so we really could be witnessing a big split here.

 

[SteveJ]

Farage is their best chance of electoral success

Is that really true though, mate? It's like assuming that Boris Johnson is the best hope for the Conservatives just because he's outspoken, publicity-hungry and populist. I read somewhere that Farage has failed to secure a seat seven times...

 

[Bury Red]

I'm so confused by this devolution to cities idea...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32726171

Is Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Essex, going to come under London?

Obviously Oxfordshire would come under Oxford, and Berkshire come under Reading, and so on....

But there is nowhere South East of London fit and capable or running a "state".. Dover? Maidstone? Tonbridge Wells? Lewes? Yet we are as different from London as Ipswich is in my opinion.

The same goes for North East of London as well.

If it's just Cities controlling their spending, then that's fine, but thats hardly the equal of what Scotland have, and shouldn't be treated as such.

I just read it as the cities themselves, not their suburbs, and only places with an elected mayor so it will likely be Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Bristol, Nottingham, Coventry, Wakefield, Doncaster, Salford and possibly Liverpool and Leicester since they all have or were offered an electoral mayor system.

If what Osbourne announced for Manchester this afternoon is true and the Cities can set their own taxes and plan infrastructure, NHS spending etc then it's going to be very strange if a city decides to reduce corporate taxation in a grab for businesses or if they change income tax levels within their boundaries so people living in Radcliffe or Whitefield would pay a different tax rate to those living 2 minutes away in Bury.