General election results 2015

[Beef Oven!]

And how many people would vote for a politics that offered something really different?
How many would vote for a politics that suggested that we should behave ethically?

I worry about deviations from political realism.

Who decides ethics?

[gurnemanz]

The clue is in the potential 83 MPs the UKIP would have in the House of Commons.

Potentially going down to zero MPs, we hear, as they have their Night of the Long Knives.

[Flosshilde]

Back up what you are saying, or shut up.

Why are you always so aggressively offensive (or offensively aggressive)?

[ahinton]

The clue is in the potential 83 MPs the UKIP would have in the House of Commons.

Really? There would appear to be at least two flaws in that argument.

Firstly, UKIP polled 3,881,129 out of a total of 30,691,680 votes cast; whilst this represents just over 12.5% of the total number of votes, some 87.5% of those cast were for six other parties, of which 20,679,248 were for just two such parties, Conservative and Labour; the former in the majority government that it has achieved or the latter in the same had Tory and Labour vote totals been reversed would alone have been able to stymie any proposals that UKIP might wish to advocate in Parliament and would indeed be even more capable of doing so in the likely event (in most cases) that none of the other four parties agree with such proposals (can you imagine, for example, that either of what are still the two main parties in terms both of numbers of seats and votes cast, i.e. Conservative and Labour, would have considered entering into coalition with UKIP had that been necessary in order to achieve an outright majority? - or, for that matter, could you imagine UKIP even wanting to enter into such a coalition had they been invited by Conservative or Labour to do so?)...

UKIP's achievement in polling as many votes as it did is not inconsiderable; the suggestions that this could or would enable it either to have just over 12.6% of the total of MPs or see through any of its proposed policies or scupper any of the current government's policies even if it could have that many MPs seems to me to have more than a whiff not of Bongo-Bongo-land but Cloud-Cuckoo-land about it.

Secondly, under what I do agree is the flawed and far from fair FPTP system, each MP is a constituency MP with constituency responsibilities and each voter expects this to be the case; until and unless that entire system be overturned and replaced with a system that did away with the need for or expectation of constituency MPs (and no such overhaul would seem to be advocated as policy by any party other, perhaps, than the Greens and UKIP itself), how would it be possible for UKIP to have 82 MPs? Where and who would they be and which areas would they represent?

[Beef Oven!]

Why are you always so aggressively offensive (or offensively aggressive)?

I don't do the passive-aggressive thing that you people go in for here. That's why.

And most of the time I'm pleasant. It's only when someone gives me crap, I'll have a go back.

[ahinton]

It's hard to predict what would happen to the UKIP's vote under the various forms of PR.

Whilst that is of course true, it's equally hard to predict the effect on voter support for any of the other parties; that said, the likelihood that it would advantage UKIP so much more than any of the other six parties to the extent that it could end up holding the balance of power is surely pretty slim. What seems far more likely - especially in the current 7-party climate - is that one practical effect of replacing FPTP with an alternative voting system is that it will be far harder for any two - or even three - parties in coalition (if they can agree to form one in the first place) to form and operate a stable and strong government.

[ahinton]

Indeed. The supposition is often that everyone will vote exactly the same way under any given PR system as under FPTP, but there's no reason to suppose this; some would, but others surely wouldn't. Including me actually.

I would go farther and suggest that, under an alternative to FPTP, quite a lot of people might vote differently.

[Flosshilde]

Secondly, under what I do agree is the flawed and far from fair FPTP system, each MP is a constituency MP with constituency responsibilities and each voter expects this to be the case; until and unless that entire system be overturned and replaced with a system that did away with the need for or expectation of constituency MPs (and no such overhaul would seem to be advocated as policy by any party other, perhaps, than the Greens and UKIP itself), how would it be possible for UKIP to have 82 MPs? Where and who would they be and which areas would they represent?

When the Scottish Parliament started (or resumed sitting) after 1997 a form of PR was introduced, with some MSPs being elected directly in constituencies, and others selected from a party list according to which parties got the most votes. These covered a wider area than the first group's constituencies. There was much grumbling at first, especially from the constituency MSPs, that people wouldn't know who to go to, who would represent them. That seems to have died down now. It does depend on what you see as the role of an MP, MSP, etc - a social worker who deals with your own specific problem, or someone who represents your area.

[ahinton]

Potentially going down to zero MPs, we hear, as they have their Night of the Long Knives.

UKIP might be wise (although as one who did not vote UKIP it might be argued by some who did that it's not my place to say so) to consider what the LibDems seem now to be thinking of doing and renaming the party, although I'm by no means convinced that they're the only party whose name might benefit from a rethink.

The United Kingdom Independence Party identifies itself as a party operating in the UK electoral system (which seems so obvious as to be unnecessary to point out) and is a political prty (which is equally obvious) but its name does not of itself divulge from what it seeks to be "independent" or what it believes characterises it as more "independent" of anything than any of the other 6 main parties.

The Conservative Party do not stand for conservation (other, perhaps, of the status quo for their rich chums) although it's perhaps a wonder that it did not drop the "and Unionist" part of its full name during the Thatcher years.

Notwithstanding its origins, the Labour Party's connections with the trade union movement are by no means as strong as once they were, any more than is that movement itself in terms either of political power or of membership as a proportion of the working population as a whole.

The Liberal Democrats, once the Social Democrats, previously the Liberal Party and earlier than that the Whigs and who are now apparently considering yet another change of appellation seem to regard its name as analogous to Easter, a moveable feast.

Whilst the Greens' priority of environmental issues identifies its raison d'être, not all of its policies do or can relate directly and solely to that, so one might call into question whether its name is somewhat misleading.

Given last year's referendum decision against the secession of Scotland from the remainder of UK, taken together with its recent electoral sucesses, suggests that, whilst not all SNP voters support Scottish "independence", they do favour the furtherance of what they believe to be the interests of Scotland, and so the name Scottish National Party would seem fair enough. It seems rather difficult to determine whether or not Plaid Cymru, whose dismal showing has hardly changed since the previous General Election and which has attracted less than 0.6% of votes in UK, is aptly named.

But what's in a name? Marketing and PR, that's what! - although it might nevertheless be argued that a political party by any other name would smell as (fill in the blank/s)...

[ahinton]

When the Scottish Parliament started (or resumed sitting) after 1997 a form of PR was introduced, with some MSPs being elected directly in constituencies, and others selected from a party list according to which parties got the most votes. These covered a wider area than the first group's constituencies. There was much grumbling at first, especially from the constituency MSPs, that people wouldn't know who to go to, who would represent them. That seems to have died down now. It does depend on what you see as the role of an MP, MSP, etc - a social worker who deals with your own specific problem, or someone who represents your area.

Fair enough insofar as it goes, but how could UKIP pull off the same kind of arrangement (which, after all, applies only to a relatively tiny proportion of the UK electorate and would in any case have ceased forthwith had Scotland gone "independent" last year)?...

[french frank]

We have PR for the Euro-elections. The constituencies may be very big, but they also have several MEPs. You can select the one you think most diligent in dealing with constituents' Euro-concerns. My MEP ws extremely diligent when I emailed him about forum members' concerns about the effect Euro legislation would have on lead organ pipes …

[Bryn]

Recalling the brief appearance of the Literal Democrat candidate, and similar cases, anyone want to launch the United Kingdom Interdependence Party?

[Serial_Apologist]

It does depend on what you see as the role of an MP, MSP, etc - a social worker who deals with your own specific problem, or someone who represents your area.

One would hope the two roles would not be mutually exclusive, but, thinking of cases of local authority discrimination/unfair deportation etc. where a member's assistance to a constituent might prove essential in a final resort situation, fear they might be. The problem would then consist in how to determine which member - the one elected on FPTP or the one by PR - would be chosen to undertake which role.

[french frank]

The problem would then consist in how to determine which member - the one elected on FPTP or the one by PR - would be chosen to undertake which role.

Could you elucidate what you mean by that S_A? All of them would be elected by PR.

[Serial_Apologist]

Could you elucidate what you mean by that S_A? All of them would be elected by PR.

Unless I've misunderstood I was thinking what flossie was saying about some members to the Scottish parliament having being elected on a FPTP system and the rest on PR so that the former could retain that aspect of local representation that means the voter votes for his or her MP rather than for a government, and the latter shares out the national vote more fairly and proportionately.

Or is the individual MP half voted in proportionally, and half first past the post? If so would that be worked out by totting up his or her local vote, then dividing the vote for the party he or she represented by the numbers voting nationally for that party, then finally distributing that number equally between all of its candidates? If that is the case, what about the individual independent (i.e. non-aligned) candidate?

I'm pretty thick when it comes to matters arithmetical, I'm afraid. [Blush]