General election results 2015

[David-G]

Why?

It means most people wanted something else

But they didn't all want the same thing.

[Serial_Apologist]

But they didn't all want the same thing.

In this instance that "something else" is the same thing.

[MrGongGong]

But they didn't all want the same thing.

They did
They wanted the conservatives to be the opposition not the government

[P. G. Tipps]

Who should govern, whether and to what extent they might prove to be capable of governing and the res must suely be dependent upon whether they have an overall majority or not - and, whilst there's no need for two-party coalition any longer (at least for the time being), the current government's situation is far from "victorious" in terms of the numbers of votes polled and the numbers of other parties that could well unseat thi and that government proposal.

You appear to be suggesting that the 'winner' according to the previously and universally-understood (presumably) rules of engagement should give way to some sort of curious pact between a whole bunch of mutually-despising and widely-rejected 'losers'?

There is undoubtedly a clear case for some sort of reform when the party with the most votes gets fewer seats than another. That has to be unsatisfactory though fortunately it's somewhat rare.

However when a party with the most votes also gets enough seats to govern reasonably comfortably I fail to see the 'bunch of losers' have much to moan about. There is absolutely nothing to stop any party (apart from possible financial constraints) putting its case before the electorate and attempting to achieve the same.

If petitions don't matter, why did the Tories set up an e-petition website? Of course votes and seats matter in any case but, whilst the Tories have increased their vote tally, the Labour party has increased its slightly more than has the Conservatives, despite the widespead interpretation of the results being a disaster for Labour. The main events of the election results in terms of votes polled have been a disaster for the LibDems and great successes for SNP and UKIP.

I suspect the real reason for the e-petition website was pure political gimmickry. A Government 'pledged to look at something ' and not actually doing anything, after a purely arbitrary number of signatures have been collected and presented to it, is surely intended for more naive public consumption. Certainly it seems there is no great rush to re-open the website since the election. ...http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ ... maybe it was a Lib Dem idea like increasing the income tax threshold and 'equal marriage' as it doesn't really smell like an obvious 'Tory' aspiration, does it?

Well, thank God for that - but whose idea is the possible abolition of UK HA? Yes, right in one - it's that of the party that's polled just enough votes and gained just enough seats to consider itself to be in some kind of "majority government" (which statistics demonstrate to be far from the case)...

I do not confuse my own preferences regarding the 'right result' with the actual and officially-endorsed result, ahinton ...

It's not a question of anyone 'considering' anything, simply a matter of whether a party has won fairly and squarely by the official rules of engagement, you see.

Crying 'foul' after a defeat is the time-honoured cry of both politicians and football coaches!

[MrGongGong]

You appear to be suggesting that the 'winner' according to the previously and universally-understood (presumably) rules of engagement should give way to some sort of curious pact between a whole bunch of mutually-despising and widely-rejected 'losers'?

Why do you assume that everyone accepts and agrees to the 'rules of engagement'? (the use of this phrase is rather telling I think)

Whether they are described as 'official' or not.

[Anastasius]

..... against which a 38 degrees petition has, in just over a week, attracted some 254,900 signatories,...

That means nothing. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Guardian probably mentioned it.

[Anastasius]

Why?

It means most people wanted something else
if you add those who didn't vote (and NOT voting is as much a statement as voting) then you will find that the supposed "support" is very fragile indeed

You're confusing 'support' for the elected Government with 'support' for the actual electoral system and politicians in general.

The Tories won the election. It is amazing that some people can't seem to grasp this simple fact. Instead, they moan about 'unfair'.

I look forward to them staying in power in 2020. Labour won't have got their act together by then and unless the Tories nail these unnecessary strikes in the bud PDQ then the country will be heartily sick of unions and by association Labour that the Tories will probably be still in power post-2025!

[Anastasius]

....
If petitions don't matter, why did the Tories set up an e-petition website? .....

They don't matter. It's a sop to the whingers and Guardianistas.

[Anastasius]

....
Crying 'foul' after a defeat is the time-honoured cry of both politicians and football coaches!

And the left. Poor losers, as ever.

[P. G. Tipps]

Why do you assume that everyone accepts and agrees to the 'rules of engagement'? (the use of this phrase is rather telling I think)

Whether they are described as 'official' or not.

I don't know what the use of the common phrase 'rules of engagement' tells you but it tells me that anyone/party entering a competition knows the rules before entering. If they object to the rules it would seem sensible and logical not to enter in the first place.

If the result had gone another way I'm willing to bet it would have been a quite different group of people moaning about the 'unfairness' of the competition, in the bitter, simmering wake of rejection.

Ah, human nature, don't you just love it!

[Anastasius]

Why do you assume that everyone accepts and agrees to the 'rules of engagement'? (the use of this phrase is rather telling I think)

Whether they are described as 'official' or not.

Where has he said 'everyone'? I think he has put the current, and excellent, state of affairs quite eloquently IMO.

[Anastasius]

.....
If the result had gone another way I'm willing to bet it would have been a quite different group of people moaning about the 'unfairness' of the competition, in the bitter, simmering wake of rejection.
...

Ah but there's the rub. When Labour won the last election I don't recall the same volume of moaning coming from the Right. I don't recall nasty little grubby anarchists doing their best to maim and injure police in a 'peaceful' protest? But when it's the other way round? As you said, poor losers. Well, they'll just have to get used to it for the next ten years. Now, where is the 'Mute the Whingers' button ?

[MrGongGong]

Where has he said 'everyone'? I think he has put the current, and excellent, state of affairs quite eloquently IMO.

He didn't say 'everyone' and I wasn't quoting him

YOU might be looking forward to the Tories being in power
but you seem to be stuck in the idea that there are only 2 choices

It will be sad to see Radio 3 go
and
I quite like the BBC orchestras

and won't it be great to have more unqualified people working as teachers?

The Tories won the election.

But more people voted for something else.

It's assumed by many (not necessarily you) that everyone is a willing participant in this 'contest'
I think (and it pains me to say it because i'm not a great enthusiast) that Russel Brand was right before he changed his mind and suggested that people should vote.
Like many people I held my nose and voted for someone I didn't believe in to try and prevent something worse happening and participation does seem to legitimise the whole sad process.

We could do so much better

[Richard Barrett]

We could do so much better

This is the point. It's not "whingeing".

Recalling that "the Right" didn't make a fuss when Labour won the 1997 election assumes some kind of symmetry between "Left" and "Right" which doesn't actually exist. The "Right" will follow the money, so it didn't really matter to them that Blair won that election because it was clear the interests of the ruling class would be taken care of. The "Left" on the other hand, that is to say people committed to equality and social justice, are bitterly disappointed at Cameron's "victory" not because it offends their tribal sensibilities but because it will mean further victimisation of the most vulnerable in society, more food banks, more NHS privatisation, more - what was the word - "flexibility", the demise of the BBC in its present form, and so on. Some seem to be saying that because enough people voted for this it's right. It isn't right no matter how many people voted for it. And anyway, as has been said, more people voted against it.

[french frank]

Ah but there's the rub. When Labour won the last election I don't recall the same volume of moaning coming from the Right.

Arguably, because they don't do it like that. Let's change the constituency boundaries? I'm rather proud that 'my' party blocked that - and the legislation to fire workers at will.

The wealthy don't take to the streets because there are other ways to buttress the status quo: effecting change is an altogether tougher assignment. I agree that there's little to be gained by 'whingeing' - but trying to achieve something by more positive action is just as likely to end with getting crushed under the wheels of opposite warring factions.