General election results 2015

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

'The electorate' is not a single entity; it does not speak with a single voice.

Exactly.

[jean]

One hates to admit it, but the Express is right:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/575888/Ukip-would-have-83-seats-under-proportional-representation

[gurnemanz]

PR appears more democratic but it is fraught with complications. If you allocate SNP's proportion in relation to Scotland not UK, which you would have to since they have no candidates outside Scotland, (presumably the same would happen with Scottish Labour), how is it still a national UK election? Personally, I could not vote for a nationalist party. It seems to me they claim to be able to embody the good of everyone in a nation and thereby ultimately to hope to render all other factional parties obsolete or unnecessary. This might be acceptable in time of war or existential crisis. Scotland right now is not like Germany in the 30s (even if there was an example of thuggish brown-shirt-like violence against Jim Murphy the other day.) The very word "party" denotes a part of a nation, a body of people or interest group united in opposition to others in the nation. I have always believed that in Britain the concept of opposition is at the root of our democracy. It was Germany's Grand Coalition of the two main parties from 1966 that gave rise to Baader-Meinhof terrorism (Außerparlamentarische Opposition - extra-parliamentary opposition).

People often complain that the voters' connection with politicians is tenuous. If you just take the names off a party list there would be no direct connection. My representative is a Tory who I did not vote for but he is still my representative. You could take the German system with 50% directly elected and 50% from party lists, but you would have to double the size of all constituencies to have the same number of MPs overall.

[agingjb]

I almost prefer FPTP to party list systems. I prefer STV, which our rulers seem to detest.

[teamsaint]

I almost prefer FPTP to party list systems. I prefer STV, which our rulers seem to detest.

Thats the key word, Agers.
Astors and arostocrats still in charge, banks safe from interference even if the red tories ever win again.

Anybody got a big bucket of sand?

At the Southbank centre this week they had huge retro election posters from earlier times on display.

I just couldn't get that election episode of " The Prisoner" out of my mind.
Well, not till the music started, anyway.

[MrGongGong]

My representative is a Tory who I did not vote for but he is still my representative.

NO he/she isn't

MPs represent themselves, their mates, their party and down at the bottom some of their constituents

The rejection of the Libdems is a demonstration of this, (in spite of all their good local work).

There's a lot of received wisdom banded about about what "democratic" means

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

PR appears more democratic but it is fraught with complications. If you allocate SNP's proportion in relation to Scotland not UK, which you would have to since they have no candidates outside Scotland, (presumably the same would happen with Scottish Labour), how is it still a national UK election?

I know many people in England who would have voted for the SNP, had they fielded candidates here.

[jean]

During the last parliament my 'representative' voted along with most other Labour MPs for a continuation of LibCon austerity and cuts, which have had a far greater impact here than in Tory-dominated areas.

They can't properly represent their actual constituents, because their eyes are always on those constituents elsewhere who might just vote Labour some time, on a whim.

[MrGongGong]

During the last parliament my 'representative' voted along with most other Labour MPs for a continuation of LibDem austerity and cuts, which have had a far greater impact here than in Tory-dominated areas.

They can't properly represent their actual constituents, because their eyes are always on those constituents elsewhere who might just vote Labour some time, on a whim.

Well put

Sadly I don't see any great reckoning where those who were complicit are held to account
and as was pointed out on QT the other night NONE of those who lost their seats will really loose out as a result as they will all go on to jobs and more money.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

During the last parliament my 'representative' voted along with most other Labour MPs for a continuation of LibCon austerity and cuts, which have had a far greater impact here than in Tory-dominated areas.

Similarly, the Labour party meekly accepted the divisive Academy Schools policy, which involved taking schools away from the local authorities who had built and paid for them, handing them over to their mates, a handful of amateur school governors and inflating head teachers' influence and job descriptions.

[agingjb]

I haven't a clue what "loose out" means, but there could be interesting gambles on who gets to the House of Lords and who gets appointed to Euro-quangos.

[MrGongGong]

Similarly, the Labour party meekly accepted the divisive Academy Schools policy, which involved taking schools away from the local authorities who had built and paid for them, handing them over to their mates, a handful of amateur school governors and inflating head teachers' influence and job descriptions.

And even more outrageous DIDN'T plan to get rid of "Free schools" or suggest that teachers should be qualified !

How are they going to force housing associations to sell off their assets?
and who on earth thinks this is

1: a good idea?
2: ethical?

[Barbirollians]

One hates to admit it, but the Express is right:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...representation

That of course depends on the electorate voting the same way. For a long time the Lib Dem vote was inflated by tactical voting but this time that disappeared.

[LeMartinPecheur]

How are they going to force housing associations to sell off their assets?
and who on earth thinks this is

1: a good idea?
2: ethical?

As has been pointed out, HAs are charities and it's a fundamental principle of charity law that they ARE NOT PERMITTED to get rid of their assets for less than their full value. For good and very obvious reasons.

Still, a few scraps of poorly written new law and that silly idea can be very quickly blown away!

[french frank]

'The electorate' is not a single entity; it does not speak with a single voice.

Unfortunately, we only have ONE government, and in a democracy 'single voices' NEVER count, even under 'PR': the electorate is a collective which means the majority when it comes to the final result.

Thousands of individuals in the Northern cities which have suffered disproportionately from government cuts voted Labour, to the extent that majorities increased by up to 50%. But these votes count for nothing.

It's not clear that PR would stop that: Labour still got a bigger percentage of the seats than of votes (as did the SNP). Tories + UKIP + one or two Ulster Unionists would still have provided a 'right wing' majority.

It wasn't a 'move towards' anything, and adopting it would have closed off the possibility of real PR for a considerable time.

Presumably that was your reason for voting against it: but it's only your opinion that it would have 'closed off the possibility' of real change: others thought differently.