General election results 2015

[jean]

...UKIP has eroded Labour support particularly among its erstwhile working-class base in the Midlands and the North-west...

How do you work that out? The majorities for Labour parliamentary candidates in the NW were larger than ever; in Liverpool Riverside, Louise Ellman's actually doubled. Yet with FPTP there is no chance of these huge numbers of votes being translated into more seats, nor for the Labour party to stop chasing floating vioaters in marginal seats instead of taking the needs its core support seriously.

One bright spot in an othewise miserable day...the Greens retained their third seat in Liverpool St Michaels, in spite of the general election which tends to increase Labour's vote, and in spite of Labour's ingenious claim that it's undemocratic to have all three ward councillors from the same party!

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=293&RPID=7898933

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, of course - but that applies with PR. Which is being 'extolled'?

First Past The Post. I know there are many shortcomings to this method of voting, but closeness to the electorate is not one of them. But this would have to be predicated on a different economic system than the inegalitarian, unsustainable one presently operating if we are ever going to reach a system of democracy in which voters can genuinely have a stake more than by being asked, as Richard points out, to put a cross on a ballot paper once every 5 years or at shareholder's gatherings disproportionately benefitting the rich, and it's difficult right now seeing through the fug of mystification that envelopes today's mythologies of freedom to see how this could come about.

[mercia]

That isn't a logical conclusion. All parties could have lost votes to UKIP, but the Tories could have taken from the Lib Dems and still ended down on 2010. The Lib Dem vote wouldn't have gone just to one party and UKIP won't have gained from just one party.

yes I see that. I guess I was thinking the LDs will be asking themselves how they would need to change to win back support (?), but if, as you say, they lost votes in every direction that is more difficult to work out (?)

[french frank]

I guess I was thinking the LDs will be asking themselves how they would need to change to win back support (?),

Yes, indeed. As the man said, never was liberalism more needed or less wanted.

[Dave2002]

Re my earlier msg 21 - perhaps some of that was not conveying the meaning I'd intended. One suggestion has been to support a large party one doesn't really whole heartedly agree with, and work to change it from within. This is one strategy, and might make sense in some situations, but generally the less cynical view is to try to align oneself with a party which expresses views and concerns which are acceptable, and then, if necessary, tweak things a bit to get better alignment. Unfortunately in the UK for many people political engagement is limited so the choices on offer, which, whether they can be modified or not, tend to be a rather poor match for many people, so now we do have a situation in which seemingly only 25% of the electorate are likely to gain any satisfaction from the result. Support for small parties, even if they present a view which is better matched to some people's views is less likely to be effective, as they may never gain enough traction to make headway.

Engagement with politics is possible even between elections - without actually going into the whole business oneself - by writing to MPs and ministers, including the PM, on matters of concern, and is something I have done in the past, on occasions with good outcomes. This has appled even where the MP or minister concerned has not been of the same political persuasion as myself at the time.

[aeolium]

How do you work that out? The majorities for Labour parliamentary candidates in the NW were larger than ever; in Liverpool Riverside, Louise Ellman's actually doubled.

Yes, you're right - sorry, I was just looking at the UKIP results which in some cases show an even greater increase than Labour (as is the case in some of the Midlands seats). It somehow seems difficult to believe that UKIP would be taking votes from the Libdems (i.e. former Libdem voters would vote UKIP).

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, indeed. As the man said, never was liberalism more needed or less wanted.

Liberalism (in the sense I think you intend ff) works most effectively when the economic health of the system is such that concessions from the bosses and their political establishment- increased wages, salaries, public spending etc - are more readily elicited by reasonable demands than can be gained at times of crisis, such as now, for it is then that the class struggle, recognised or not, takes on a particularly acute antagonistic form, usually precipitated by the well-to-do upon the underprivileged through such agencies as press misrepresentation, lowered living standards and repressive law, and then (hopefully!) by the latter towards the former in forms of resistance: strikes, demonstrations, organising alternative means of running society, industry etc etc.

[MrGongGong]

Indeed. PR and FPTP are basically tinkering with the same idea though, which is to keep accountability on a manageably low level where normally it only has to be thought about once every five years and then only in the broadest brushstrokes.

There might be more than a grain of truth in this

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”


― R. Buckminster Fuller

[Serial_Apologist]

There might be more than a grain of truth in this

The thing is, the economic model we live under being intrinsically expansionist in order for its component parts to operate determines that everything has to be driven to produce more stuff more economically, and this is done by keeping the controllable cost element down. And that controllable cost is ordinary people's incomes, which have to fight to keep up with the inflationary aspect of the system which periodically clicks in when the amount of money in circulation exceeds the value produced by workers transforming raw materials into products sold in the market place at prices some are better placed to pay dependent on the price of item in question. The one variable the bosses can control after pocketing what they think they deserve and paying other expenses including what keeps workers well enough to make them profits is wages. Somehow the market has to absorb all the product they make, and it is the inefficiency in controlling all this product that periodically causes recessions, a euphemism for overproduction. Firms then go bust or only compete if they can push the cost burden down onto their workforce. Capitalism has never managed to overcome this innate contradiction; and its ruling class sees no need to as long as it can keep the rest of the population diverted from seeing that the problems they create are endemic to this unplanned character of the system they themselves benefit by. And so it goes on, until people take over and plan things in such a way that greed no longer has to be both the motivator, the basis for periodic mass punishment and the ruination of the natural systems that provide the wherewithal of a wealth that could be co-operatively cared for and shared out.

Adam Smith, Margaret Thatcher's 18th century hero, understood half of this; but he believed that capitalism had made the worker free to sell his or her labour power to the boss, and while calling for bosses to be humane in their dealings with those who made them their profits he didn't seem to appreciate that the problem existed in the power relations between employer and employee being heavily weighted on behalf of the former, until such a day when the latter got together and stood up to (usually) him.

[Dave2002]

Yes, you're right - sorry, I was just looking at the UKIP results which in some cases show an even greater increase than Labour (as is the case in some of the Midlands seats). It somehow seems difficult to believe that UKIP would be taking votes from the Libdems (i.e. former Libdem voters would vote UKIP).

Do we actually have reliable figures for the popular vote yet? I've seen some graphs, but no detailed tables of results.

It seems to me that there are two cases of "wasted" votes.

1. You vote in an area with a dominant party, and vote for a candidate from another party. Waste of time!

2. You vote for a candidate who gets significantly more than the required number of votes. You need not have bothered! Again - a waste of time.

OTOH, if there are candidates who might plausibly be elected in competition, then voting is not a waste of time.

[MrGongGong]

It seems to me that there are two cases of "wasted" votes.
.

3: You are presented with a 'choice' between 3 people who all believe that 'the economy' is the most important thing in the universe, whoever you vote for the net result is more or less the same.

[french frank]

3: You are presented with a 'choice' between 3 people who all believe that 'the economy' is the most important thing in the universe, whoever you vote for the net result is more or less the same.

As the slogan goes/went: "It's the economy, stupid." Referring to the fact that for most voters jobs, wage/benefit levels, living standards, public services &c are what matter to them.

[John Wright]

To all of you talking about needing PR, if Labour had won would you be discussing PR?

Losers labour seem to be blaming the electorate's fear of the SNP.

Not one of them has suggested the current Labour 'ideas' are rubbish :o))

Tories are being trusted with the economy, a million jobs created, many many more don't pay income tax (and most everyone who earns more than £12k has also had same reduction in tax) - I guess we'll never know what more labour would have done with their mess had they stayed in power last time.

[teamsaint]

As the slogan goes/went: "It's the economy, stupid." Referring to the fact that for most voters jobs, wage/benefit levels, living standards, public services &c are what matter to them.

oh. so why did Lord Snooty and his chums, ( Copyright a.n. other board member) win then?

[jean]

Because the media told everyone that Lord Snooty and his chums alone could manage the economy, and however much those who suffered from their cuts might not like it, there was no alternative.

And Labour didn't demur.