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

originally posted by: n00bUK
I hate my country, I mean it. 5 million votes between Green party and UKIP and only two #ing representatives in Parliament. Its a #ing joke. An old electoral system that needs to be scrapped.

Well, there was a national referendum in 2011 that could have changed the "first past the post" to something different. Did you vote in it? The vast majority who did vote sais "no". Just saying.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: n00bUK
I hate my country, I mean it. 5 million votes between Green party and UKIP and only two #ing representatives in Parliament. Its a #ing joke. An old electoral system that needs to be scrapped.

Well, there was a national referendum in 2011 that could have changed the "first past the post" to something different. Did you vote in it? The vast majority who did vote sais "no". Just saying.

I didn't even know there was a referendum on this issue

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!!

I don't understand your premise. The Conservatives had higher taxes and much higher spending than the Labour Party.

They got elected by transferring wealth from the young and the unborn (who don't vote) to rich old people (who do).

As for the cuts - could be a good thing. Cut housing benefit and rents will come down, making the rich poorer and the poor better off. Cut arms spending - fewer dead children. Cut public sector salaries - greater equality with the private sector.

The cuts are inevitable, so let's hope they cut in the right places.

So happy for you guys over there. It's nice to see the majority waking up to the suicidal socialist lunatics who only want to continue to spend like drunken sailors, which is basically enslaving future generations. Unfortunately the irrational minded liberals will never comprehend that reality.

Hopefully we can get it right here in America come 2016, not that the spineless liberal Republicans will accomplish anything whatsoever other than not trying to entice race wars like the madman Obama. At the end of the day though, the deciders have already hand picked and groomed the winning puppet. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: supermouse

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!!

I don't understand your premise. The Conservatives had higher taxes and much higher spending than the Labour Party.

They got elected by transferring wealth from the young and the unborn (who don't vote) to rich old people (who do).

As for the cuts - could be a good thing. Cut housing benefit and rents will come down, making the rich poorer and the poor better off. Cut arms spending - fewer dead children. Cut public sector salaries - greater equality with the private sector.

The cuts are inevitable, so let's hope they cut in the right places.

imagine the public sector managers who sacked and were the face of cuts getting sacked lol and imagine a britain unable to defend itself and imagine a britain divided.

Some are greedy but most are fearful. Unfortunately those who work and get good money are the least informed. they believe the BS the government spins about who is to blame for the state of the country and are afraid they will end up lower class if they dont vote with the conservatives.

Cameron is a used care sales man.

a reply to: n00bUK

I have barely been keeping my crap together today as well, and I am less than fifty miles from London.

For the people? Nope. By the people? Not even nearly. It always amazes me that our nations leaders like to pontificate toward the leaders of other nations, about right and wrong, and democracy, and yet it seems as if actual democracy has never been within our grasp. I wonder what kind of twisted degenerate bastard one would have to be, to call this... THIS utter crapshow, democracy in action?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Theres a famous quote that if voting would actually change anything they wouldn't let you do it we too have first past the post its a system designed for incumbents and 2 parties UKIP got 14 per cent of the vote and 1 seat and the SNP 4.7 percent and 56 seats thats just wrong but if the average swing was 5 to 10 per cent the SNP i.e the normal range it would be history,they got an average of 28 per cent which im sure the jerrymander designers never thought of.

a reply to: Flavianyoutu.be...

a reply to: Hurky1

First, 36% is closer to 1/3 not 1/4, meaning your statement that 3/4 of the population didnt vote tory ius incorrect.

Second. your reading the results to agree with your desired outcome, try reading the results as:

36% of population agree with each other on policies by which to govern a country.

64% the population could not agree policies to govern a country.

originally posted by: n00bUK

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: n00bUK
I hate my country, I mean it. 5 million votes between Green party and UKIP and only two #ing representatives in Parliament. Its a #ing joke. An old electoral system that needs to be scrapped.

Well, there was a national referendum in 2011 that could have changed the "first past the post" to something different. Did you vote in it? The vast majority who did vote sais "no". Just saying.

I didn't even know there was a referendum on this issue

Why not? It's not like it was a secret? Being uninformed is your issue and sadly, is far to prevalent in society these days. Although it has to be said that the AV system we were offered was not a PR system and was complicated, hence why it was rejected. I don't think the 2011 referendum should be used as an example hat people don't want voting change.

a reply to: supermouse

Taxes are higher under the Tories? How so? VAT went up, yes, but the tax free personal allowance has gone up no end - tax as share of my income has actually fallen over the past 5 years. Labour, on the other hand, took away the 10% tax rate in 2008 and forced millions of low paid people into the 20% bracket with one fell swoop.

a reply to: stumason

Here is a good explanation on how proportional representation would have changed the outcome.... seems fairer on the smaller parties and should probably be implemented.

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: woogleuk

Aye, I read that earlier. I am for voting reform as FPTP only works in a two party system and even then not very well.

I just worry that PR will remove the constituency link and reinforce political parties at Westminster while pushing out any independents who want to stand. Unless they do it on a local list basis - say merge a few constituencies into one larger one for, say, 5 seats and then have a PR vote..

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Whats a tragedy is that people still dont understand whats happened here. 4 million voted for UKiP, the majority of England voted for Conservative. Even in Wales Cons made ground. Scotland voted for nationalism. Has the penny dropped? We have been wrecked by Labours policoes when they were last in and we dont want it, had Labour getting in not been a factor UKIP wouldve got in, in my opinion.

Dont worry though more excuses will come, racist rhetoric, unpopular Labour leader blah blah blah, until people accept we are on a knife edge and us British want out country back not more of the same from Labour and as for them standing up for workers, they havent dont that in sixty years! see my most recent thread for details.

originally posted by: stumason

a reply to: supermouse

Taxes are higher under the Tories? How so? VAT went up, yes, but the tax free personal allowance has gone up no end - tax as share of my income has actually fallen over the past 5 years. Labour, on the other hand, took away the 10% tax rate in 2008 and forced millions of low paid people into the 20% bracket with one fell swoop.

I guess it depends on how much you earn. Low paid people are better off under the Tories because of the tax free personal allowance. Higher paid people don't get the personal allowance and often have to pay VAT twice (once on business earnings and once when they spend), so they are worse off.

I think taxes overall are up, but I must admit that I haven't checked.

My point is that it's the opposite to what you would expect from reading the news. The Conservatives were more left wing (much higher spending and more of the taxes falling on the rich) than Labour.

The SNP won the election for the Conservatives.

That little troll woman, whatever her name is, has been running her mouth off about how SNP will be the kingmaker in a Labour coalition and will get to have control over the budget. Scottish voters overwhelmingly supported them because it makes sense to increase the strength of your position in that kind of situation, leading to a massive drop in the number of Labour seats.

English voters who were still marginal as to who they would support became understandably concerned about the SNP, what with their gloating over having their hands in the till and directing more money from English pockets to Scottish socialist projects. Uncertain voters were so worried about what would happen if a Labour coalition came about (and who believes Labour when they claim they wouldn't form a coalition with the SNP?) that they voted Conservative, largely to protect themselves from the SNP.

I reckon that, if the SNP had kept their mouths shut, we would still have seen the Conservatives with more seats but the difference would have been small enough that Labour could potentially have formed a coalition government. I also reckon that UKIP would have picked up a lot more seats. The Lib Dems would still most likely have lost a lot of their support.

Also, I wonder if most of the people talking about the "bedroom tax" actually understands what it means?

Also, every representation system is a trade off. A more granular level of representation might get more viewpoints heard, but the tradeoff is the risk of legislative gridlock. Reducing the number of parties might limit the viewpoints but means that Parliament is more likely to be able to actually pass legislation.

The current system isn't perfect but it's better than some of the alternatives.

For those outside the UK, the difference between Conservatives can be summed up like this:

The Conservatives could offer an additional £1million in funding to the NHS. By the time they'd finished paying for all the consultations, focus groups, and PR campaigns, the NHS would be left with enough to hire one more nurse for a few weeks.

Labour could offer an additional £1 billion in funding to the NHS. By the time they'd finished screwing around, the NHS would owe £2billion and have ten hospitals closed.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: woogleuk

Aye, I read that earlier. I am for voting reform as FPTP only works in a two party system and even then not very well.

I just worry that PR will remove the constituency link and reinforce political parties at Westminster while pushing out any independents who want to stand. Unless they do it on a local list basis - say merge a few constituencies into one larger one for, say, 5 seats and then have a PR vote..

Thats my worry too.

My areas lucky in having a pretty good MP and I know a few other community's do too. Be a shame for them to lose that link.

originally posted by: EvillerBob


The Conservatives could offer an additional £1million in funding to the NHS. By the time they'd finished paying for all the consultations, focus groups, and PR campaigns, the NHS would be left with enough to hire one more nurse for a few weeks.

Labour could offer an additional £1 billion in funding to the NHS. By the time they'd finished screwing around, the NHS would owe £2billion and have ten hospitals closed.

So true.

It was under labour we lost a Hospital and a 24/7 A&E department round here all under there "centralization" policy's.

Not to mention that care in the community crap that dumped thousands of mentally ill people onto the streets..... Sure ok Thatcher started it, but Labour closed a number of mental health wards round here, no effort to stop it.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
The SNP won the election for the Conservatives.

BS... England failed to vote Labour and that's the bottom line

Even if Scotland had voted in 59 Labour MP's, English voters decision meant the Tories would still have won..

F###, Blame Wales, They Voted in 11x more Tories than we did...But no...it's all Scotland's fault...Ha..

And that wee Troll Woman you talk about ,other than Alex, She is by far a smarter politician than anyone you will have on Westminster's Tory bench.

Cant wait to see how the Tories are going to fudge the numbers for the next 5 year like they have the last....