General election results 2015

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... I think, FF, that ferney's 'sorry?' was a raised eyebrow at the apparent infelicity of your phrasing "329 seats, fewer than 326... ".

Had you said "329 seats; whereas fewer than 326 are required... " I think we ('cos I too had to re-read your sentence to get the meaning... ) wd have had no trouble understanding your point.

:ok:

[Mary Chambers]

I'm just depressed.

So am I. Good to see Farage and Esther McVey (Wirral West) lose their seats, though.

[Serial_Apologist]

But the Conservatives have won almost the same number of seats as Labour. Who did they win them from?

What isn't noticed is that each constituency is different. For every one where people voted LibDem to keep the Tories out, another set of voters were voting LibDem to keep Labour out. In the end, neither camp was happy with what it got: 'I didn't vote LD to get a Tory government' or 'Lib Dems have obstructed Conservatives from carrying out their mandate'. Only 8 were Scottish MPs who lost to the SNP. At a quick glance, I'd say there were more losses to Tories than to Labour.

Well anyone can see that the effects of government policies will vary from region to region, town to town, and that parties will respond accordingly differently, and voters to parties.

[french frank]

long extolled as the chief purpose of voting, not support for a government

Out of date as something to be extolled?

- let alone the usual imponderables PR involves, e.g. legitimising post-election manifesto compromises in the bargaining process, which even with FPTP has been the main source of the LibDems' support loss.

I've already had emails from Unlock Democracy and the Electoral Reform Society urging me to support petitions. For once, I shan't, having a sour experience of how the electorate views the working of coalition as distinct from the principle.

[french frank]

Well anyone can see that the effects of government policies will vary from region to region, town to town, and that parties will respond accordingly differently, and voters to parties.

I was responding to aeolium's implication that Liberal Democrat support came largely from the left.

[Richard Barrett]

Ukip getting only one mandate though some 13% or so voting for them

Under proportional representation they would have more seats in parliament and then it would be clearer exactly what kind of people these are, which would tend to reduce their vote in the future, just as the Lib Dems' vote has collapsed now that they've been seen in "action" as the junior partner in a governing coalition.

The Scottish result seems to show that when people are given the choice of a realistically electable party opposed to austerity, nuclear weapons, university tuition fees, the demonisation of those on welfare and fearmongering over immigration, they will vote for it. In the rest of the UK there was no such choice and in fact neither of the "major" parties managed significantly to change their percentage of the vote in comparison with the last election. Maybe this will lead to a leftward shift in Labour over the coming years while the Tories predictably continue dismantling the NHS and selling it to their friends, indulging in the massive distraction of an EU referendum which their pals in big business won't allow to result in an exit, victimising the most vulnerable in society and all the rest of it; but I doubt it.

[aeolium]

But the Conservatives have won almost the same number of seats as Labour. Who did they win them from?

Sorry, I'm not with you here. Are you talking about in Scotland? If so, the Conservatives did not win any seats - they held the one they had. Labour retained 1 of theirs and lost 40.

[french frank]

Sorry, I'm not with you here. Are you talking about in Scotland? If so, the Conservatives did not win any seats - they held the one they had. Labour retained 1 of theirs and lost 40.

My ellipsis again - I meant from the Lib Dems. In fact, now I've checked, they won more (from the Lib Dems) than Labour did. 25?

[Serial_Apologist]

Out of date as something to be extolled?

I have no idea if voting for one's prospective representative has become out of date. If that is the case it might have been nice to have been informed of such; I voted for the person who on the doorstep made the strongest impression; she might one day have challenged the current leadership that has put the party I've always supported electorally in disrepute; what chance that through PR, short of actually joining said party, which would amount to as diminution of democratic choice?

[french frank]

the party I've always supported electorally

Because they've always had the best candidate?

[MrGongGong]

Privatisation of the NHS started under Labour, and if the people on these isles prefer to stand in the cold outside Europe, so be it.

AND ?

Opposing one thing doesn't automatically make you a supporter of the other.
I have a sore nose today from the clothespeg

One trouble with the EU referendum is that people seem to believe the myth that the last one was only about trade.

(this is what every household was sent http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm )

[Serial_Apologist]

Under proportional representation they would have more seats in parliament and then it would be clearer exactly what kind of people these are, which would tend to reduce their vote in the future, just as the Lib Dems' vote has collapsed now that they've been seen in "action" as the junior partner in a governing coalition.

The problem then being the quite possibly irreparable damage undertaken in the meantime.

The Scottish result seems to show that when people are given the choice of a realistically electable party opposed to austerity, nuclear weapons, university tuition fees, the demonisation of those on welfare and fearmongering over immigration, they will vote for it. In the rest of the UK there was no such choice and in fact neither of the "major" parties managed significantly to change their percentage of the vote in comparison with the last election. Maybe this will lead to a leftward shift in Labour over the coming years while the Tories predictably continue dismantling the NHS and selling it to their friends, indulging in the massive distraction of an EU referendum which their pals in big business won't allow to result in an exit, victimising the most vulnerable in society and all the rest of it; but I doubt it.

Well, there were these alternatives - namely the Greens and, in Wales, Plaid Cymru. It's odd nowadays to find myself defending constitutionality in a rapidly evolving situation in which capitalism's gobal unravelling - the symptoms and consequences of which got barely a mention by any of the parties apart from UKIP - outpaces the capacity of newer political alternatives to achieve commensurate growth in support unless clothed in the mantel of nationalism, because nationalism is less easy for the right-wing dominated press that uses it day in, day out, to dismiss.

[aeolium]

My ellipsis again - I meant from the Lib Dems. In fact, now I've checked, they won more (from the Lib Dems) than Labour did. 25?

Yes, I don't think that is purely the result of Libdem votes going mainly to the Conservatives, though, but of the collapse of the Libdem vote generally, losing votes to various parties (e.g. the Greens who outpolled the Libdems in quite a few constituencies). Where did Libdem votes go in Scotland which caused them to lose all but one of their seats - probably not to the Conservatives?

[Serial_Apologist]

Because they've always had the best candidate?

They always have where I've happened to live, true, but the reason's to do with the LP historically garnering the working class vote and feeling part of that.

[Richard Barrett]

there were these alternatives - namely the Greens and, in Wales, Plaid Cymru.

That's why I used the term "realistically electable." (For whatever reason this may be.)