The Conservative UK Election Majority - Selfish and Greedy or What Else?

a reply to: Flavian your right. Ive clearly lost touch with the reality on the ground. Maybe I never was in touch with reality

originally posted by: Hurky1
So 36% of UK voters voted Tory. 64% of UK voters didn't.

That's the nature of the electoral system in the UK for General Elections.

It's "first past the post" and based on seats won, where each seat is contested. The big distortion is not that the Conservatives have 40% of the vote and likely over 50% of the seats, but the fact that the SNP have less than 5% of the national vote, but approaching 10% of the seats; or that UKIP have pulled 12% of the vote (over twice the SNP) and look to get a mere 1 seat. The Liberal Democrats had a really bad night, yet have polled more votes than the SNP.

You can pick out all the problems with elections to prove a point, but remember that under the Conservative / Liberal coalition in 2001 a national referendum was held to see if there should be changes by introducing a new approach to elections, and the result was a resounding "NO".

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Whereismypassword

It 's not sour grapes marra, I couldn't give a toss, both Labour and Cons (and LD) are bad for this country, in my and many others opinions.

What I see on the internet, whether it's blogs, Facebook or whatever source, is hatred for the Tories.

The problem with this country is its voting system, we need to see a major reform in the way it happens.

a reply to: paraphi

Thanks for pointing that out, I did not know that. Makes depressing reading.

You must understand why people come on here havin a moan about who got in when the vast majority did not vote for them.
I will simply leave it at that.

a reply to: paraphi

All excellent points. I would like to say though that the vote in 2011 was for a complicated AV system. not a PR system which is fairer, while we were also still the same old "2 party system". A lot has changed in 4 years, with the swell of other parties and the FPTP system does not work well with a multi-party system for the reasons you pointed out.

I think if a vote was held tomorrow on switching to PR, it wouldn't be the same result as last time out and I for one feel that I would vote yes to change it myself and I voted "No" to AV in 2011.

The fact the SNP got 55 more seats than UKIP with half the vote is just one example of why we should change the system. It distorts Parliament.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Flavian your right. Ive clearly lost touch with the reality on the ground. Maybe I never was in touch with reality

Who said anything about you losing touch with reality? I simply said we need some honesty in the debate. Politically, i don't agree with you Woodward but i have always respected your posts and wouldn't be that rude to you.

a reply to: stumason

Would PR be necessrily fairer though? It sounds good in principle but the reality is a never ending series of coalition governments (just look around Europe!).

The 64% that didn't vote Tory voted for a wide diversion of parties. UKIP should certainly have more MP's to show for their share of the vote, the SNP should have less.

It definitely need loking at though. From memeory, wasn't it Labour that galvanised parties to vote down the AV alternative as they thought it they would lose out? Again, from memory, i seem to remember that this propsed system would have actually harmed the Tories more (under analysis).

you know what?

I think this is the best result we could have had!

Milliband, Gleg, Firage are all gone and will have to be replaced, if this result has said anything its that the people want a alternative. The conservatives, I honestly think have done a reasonable job in the last few years but the SNP have taken all of Scotland, giving us a new political "big three".

Labour need to change, too many posh boys on the front bench's who are being swept out of the house.

Will be very interesting to see what Salmond does in Westminster

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
To the surprise of many the UK conservatives have won the general election.

What will be the price that 60% of the population will pay for this outcome?

What will the cuts be and who will be affected?
Will those who voted Cameron back in regret it?
Personally I hope he now nails the blue wannabee voters! I think its a tragedy for ordinary working folk and those even less fortunate!!

We shall soon learn where the £12b promised cuts are to be made. Last week's leak that child benefits had been considered and subsequent denial of this leaves me further convinced the blue rinse brigade, ie, those most likely to vote as instructed by the press are to be hit big time. Do you know that the simple act of extending bedroom tax to the retired will net the treasury £12b?

The win for the Tories was I suspect, heavily influenced by the (last few days before the election) savaging of Milliband by MSM. He shot himself in the foot by not seeking to work with Nicola and arrogantly assuming that the pain of the last 5 years guaranteed him victory over Cameron.

Yes, the voting population have decided they would rather be shafted by the blues than by Miliband and his strange lack of will to fulfil his remit as the leader of her maj's opposition. I hope he does resign, the Labour party sorely misunderstood the feeling of their own supporters when they elected him as leader over his brother.

He stabbed his own brother in the back for his job, how on earth people could still vote for him is a mystery

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Oliver Cromwell? the commander who had some of his own men shot? Really?

originally posted by: stumason

I do agree with you. However, what replaces the FPTP is the key. Personally, I like the fact that I know who my MP is - whether I voted for him or not. I know he lives in my constituency, I know his background, his expenses record etc... This is an advantage of FPTP.

However, I also see a problem with the fact that "minority parties don't get a shout, even though they have popular support. Perhaps this could be a role for the House of Lords - an Institution that is past its sell-by date IMHO. The Commons is FPTP and the House of Lords is proportionally represented, thus allowing a richer and more diverse second chamber.

a reply to: teapot

The MSM savaged Milliband? What about the Guardian and the Mirror savaging the Tories? Or does it only count when it is the left under attack by the media? I think people are sick of the double standards.

In all honesty i think Milliband lost because he didn't offer anything. It wasn't a campaign based on "vote for us and see what we can achieve", instead it was the usual dreary campaign of "don't vote evil Tories".

The nation aren't children. They expect more than that.

So a Tory majority then .... release the hounds and flog the poor.
The last 5 years will seem like paradise compared to the next , let the soul searching begin .... John Mann for Labour leader.

Milliband lost it in England when he refused the people a voice in a EU referendum.
He paid the price for dismissing the public. Twat.

And the scots.........well blame there fickleness.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: stumason

Would PR be necessrily fairer though? It sounds good in principle but the reality is a never ending series of coalition governments (just look around Europe!).

Europe who seem to govern OK?!?! Nothing is perfect but the current FPTP system has had it's day. The only way of 100% guaranteeing a majority government is a dictatorship.The problem with a coaltion is when it is applied to large a population. Just look at the difference between Scotland, Northern England and Southern England. You can mitigate problems with that by splitting up the country so that mini coalitions manage an area. You are more likely to get a localised majority then. This mean we need a federal system. Westminster shrinks significantly or maybe even a part time basis using representatives from each of the devolved regions.

The political analysis of western democracies tends to show that a population size of 5-10 million is large enough to be fiscally viable and small enough to eliminate the issues of them and us. This ties in nicely with splitting uo the UK into about 10-12 regions.

a reply to: teapot

I rather think that the main issue with the Labour Party at the moment, is that when it came to choosing a new leader, Ed and David Milliband should NEVER have been considered. They are NEITHER of them people who:

A) Ever gave the impression of being potential Prime Minister material.
B) Have any business leading a party traditionally associated with working class values, simply because neither of them actually have any idea what hard work looks like, let alone what real labour feels like at the end of a day of solid graft.

In my opinion, no one who has ever had a secure and unassailable living circumstance, no one who has ever owned a property worth more than two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, no one who has had a job which involved a good suit as part of their work wear, should even be allowed to stand as a Labour MP, let alone as a potential Labour PM. And yet the whole party seems to be made up of well to do city boys and girls, who are about as familiar with the realities of life in this country, as I am with extended stays at Hilton hotels, and driving super cars.

Labour should be for the labourers, not the yuppies, not the bankers, not the lawyers and paper pushers, but for those whose working life is about putting real effort in, to produce or provide a good or a service. And because that is NOT how the party runs, there is no proper representation for honest, hardworking people in this country. The REAL wealth creators, the people upon whose backs this nations GDP ACTUALLY rests, those who work on factory and shop floors, those who break their bodies, sweat, and bleed for their pittance get NO representation in this day and age.

Frankly, Westminster is a disgrace to the people of this country, and has been for years. It is about time that the government reflected the composition of the majority of people, rather than being populated by people who have nothing in common with the majority, bar the place from which their passport is issued.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Ed should never have been made leader, he only got it by a baw hair (as we say in Scotland) all came down to a few trade union votes.

I think his bother was a better candidate but neither of us can really judge that as he never got the chance to be tested.

picking a new labour leader is going to be very difficult now I think.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I believe you get the government you deserve. english people don't deserve nice things like an NHS and welfare
we deserve another 5 years of Cameron and the Conservatives

It shows how powerful fear is as a motivating factor

It was under labour my local hospital went down the crapper........

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

I want to know how it happened (I've been watching it all night).....the amount of hate for Cameron and the Tories in this country is at an all time high...who are the voters?!?!?

As for the SNP, I have a hard time swallowing just how many seats they won....I'm pleased for them, they might get a better deal now, but watching that sea of yellow flood the map was unreal.

Something fishy going on, and I don't mean Sturgeons or Salmons (yes, I am aware of the spelling, intentional)

It happend because millipede refused the public a voice in a EU referedum


O and the scots.....blame the scots