General election results 2015

[P. G. Tipps]

Isn't that, more or less, what we have anyway?

No one has asked me what I really want, and I wouldn't trust myself with the economy anyway (not that Georgie is any better than the i Ching)

Didn't you receive your voting-card promptly via the new, streamlined, privatised Royal Mail postal service, Mr GongGong ... ?

[MrGongGong]

Didn't you receive your voting-card promptly via the new, streamlined, privatised Royal Mail postal service, Mr GongGong ... ?

I did
but the only options seemed to be being kicked in the nuts or have a bucket of cold custard poured over my head
I reluctantly 'chose' the custard
but wanted to choose something else entirely

Sadly the kicking has started
even if I hadn't chosen either i'd still get kicked in the nuts

Isn't choice a wonderful thing :-(

[P. G. Tipps]

What really surprised me this time was the lack of eccentric/fun candidates in Osborne's constituency. I'd have thought it would have been a prime target for the Raving Loonies and the like.

There were the five parties, Con, Lab, UKIP, Lib Dem and Grn and that was it ...

One almost yearned for the good old rumbustious days of Neil Hamilton & The Man In The White Suit.

[Richard Barrett]

the lack of eccentric/fun candidates

What are you talking about? There were hundreds of them and they won almost four million votes!

[P. G. Tipps]

What are you talking about? There were hundreds of them and they won almost four million votes!

True, and it's also thanks to FPTP only one of them managed to get anywhere near Parliament ... :laugh:

[ahinton]

So that's really a rather long-winded way of saying that you haven't actually been persuaded that there is a better system to replace FPTP so presumably you'd now currently vote to keep it?

The answer to that - as short-winded as you seem to be and as should in any case have been plqainly obvious without any need to ask - is NO!

After all we can't have a 'no system' whilst the presumably long search for the elusive Democratic Nirvana goes on ... ?

We're not due another General Election for almost five years; what's neeed is a general will to consider and, if necessary, devise - and then hold a referendum on - an alternative.

[ahinton]

There appears to be a stubborn intention to misread and impose erroneous views upon messages you respond to. The point ahinton was quite clearly making was that while there are a number of contenders which would more closely reflect the intended choices of the electorate, he has not as yet decided which of them is the best all round option. The Electoral Reform Society recognises the anti-democratic nature of FPtP and favours STV.

Indeed - and it's not, of course, for "me" to decide, although once a series of alternatives and perhaps including a new one or two is put forward for consideration, it would in any event be premature for me to say that I'd favour this one or that. But, as I said, it's not just about me.

There appear to be certain folk around these 'ere parts that ought to give up P.G. Tipps and wake up and smell the coffee...

[ahinton]

While I quite obviously haven't 'misread' or 'sought to impose' anything

Wrong.

I simply asked ahinton a simple question.

And, insofar as it's about alternatives to FPTP, I made it clear how serious an issue a change from this would be and that it needs to be subject to thorough and intelligent debate of all the alternatives, possibly including one or two that have yet to be devised and whatever is decided upon (presumably by referendum); what I ought perhaps to have added is that the system decided upon will need to be suitable for a situation in which the two-main-parties-+-also-rans "system" which might have applied in the past has, like FPTP itself, clearly had its day.

But then you're P. G. Tipps, so a fair amount of what I do or don't say is responded to by you only in tems of the misinterpretative spin that you choose to put on it.

You now appear to have answered on his behalf which confirms that he doesn't know (yet) a suitable system to replace FPTP.

Wrong again. That's not what Byrn did. 10 our of 10 for consitency, I'll give you that.

The argument is not about better representation of the electorate as a whole.

Wrond a third time. If you believe that, I don't think you have anything further of value to contribute to a discussion about the shortcomings and unfairnesses of FPTP and the need to replace that system in order better to represent the electorate/

That's the easy part.

Wrong a fourth time. Easy for whom? If it were so easy, why hasn't FPTP been changed already?

It is all about finding a better system which still reflects the entitlement of the most popular party to govern effectively.

Wrong a fifth time! If there is no obsiously "most popular party", there'll be none such to be found that will work!

That's the difficult part!

The difficult part is getting you to address this seriously and intelligently, it would seem.

A PR system which might well install a coalition of less popular 'losers' is the most 'undemocratic' of all!

If there's no outright majority for any party under any system, there'll be no outright "winnners" or "losers" and, in any ase, much would depend on how you define "winners" and "losers" in the first place, to the exent that those who might be considered to be either under one system might be the opposite under another.

As I wrote, this time around
(a) UKIP and the Greens were the biggest "losers" in terms of votes and representation
(b) Labour "lost" many seats despite not only increasing their own vote count but also doing so more than the Conservatives increased theirs
(c) The LibDems "lost" not only a great number of votes and seats but, in so doing, altered the overall result in which they'd never have been the party of government anyway.

If a system that can allow all of that can be deemed acceptable, I'll eat my hat - and Lord Ashdown's, too!

[jean]

I've always felt rather wary of referendums, and doubted their ability to present complex issues in a way that can be clearly undestood and decided upon.

Until this aftternoon, that is...

[MrGongGong]

Until this aftternoon, that is...

Great news indeed
and many will be raising a glass to the Irish this evening :-)

[P. G. Tipps]

Wrong.

And, insofar as it's about alternatives to FPTP, I made it clear how serious an issue a change from this would be and that it needs to be subject to thorough and intelligent debate of all the alternatives, possibly including one or two that have yet to be devised and whatever is decided upon (presumably by referendum); what I ought perhaps to have added is that the system decided upon will need to be suitable for a situation in which the two-main-parties-+-also-rans "system" which might have applied in the past has, like FPTP itself, clearly had its day.

But then you're P. G. Tipps, so a fair amount of what I do or don't say is responded to by you only in tems of the misinterpretative spin that you choose to put on it.


Wrong again. That's not what Byrn did. 10 our of 10 for consitency, I'll give you that.


Wrond a third time. If you believe that, I don't think you have anything further of value to contribute to a discussion about the shortcomings and unfairnesses of FPTP and the need to replace that system in order better to represent the electorate/


Wrong a fourth time. Easy for whom? If it were so easy, why hasn't FPTP been changed already?


Wrong a fifth time! If there is no obsiously "most popular party", there'll be none such to be found that will work!


The difficult part is getting you to address this seriously and intelligently, it would seem.


If there's no outright majority for any party under any system, there'll be no outright "winnners" or "losers" and, in any ase, much would depend on how you define "winners" and "losers" in the first place, to the exent that those who might be considered to be either under one system might be the opposite under another.

As I wrote, this time around
(a) UKIP and the Greens were the biggest "losers" in terms of votes and representation
(b) Labour "lost" many seats despite not only increasing their own vote count but also doing so more than the Conservatives increased theirs
(c) The LibDems "lost" not only a great number of votes and seats but, in so doing, altered the overall result in which they'd never have been the party of government anyway.

If a system that can allow all of that can be deemed acceptable, I'll eat my hat - and Lord Ashdown's, too!

So amongst that impressively Amazonian forest of words, mostly expressing your usual kind comments about myself, you are now really confirming that I was, in fact, correct to believe that you have not yet come up with a system that you feel would be better than FPTP? As I haven't either, we now appear to find ourselves in some significant accord, it would seem!

So let's celebrate this rare event with a warm evening toast to each other, ahinton!

[Flosshilde]

What you really mean, Flossie, is that you simply don't recognise an answer which you don't like!

Not that you are alone in that, by any means ...

Your answer to my question was that the present government is an effective one. As it's only just been elected, and hasn't actually done anything, one must assume that you think an effective government is one that hasn't had any effect. A strange understanding of 'effective', but given your usual inside out & topsy turvy arguments it's probably what one should expect of you.

[MrGongGong]

one must assume that you think an effective government is one that hasn't had any effect.

Excellent logic Flossie

[P. G. Tipps]

Your answer to my question was that the present government is an effective one. As it's only just been elected, and hasn't actually done anything, one must assume that you think an effective government is one that hasn't had any effect. A strange understanding of 'effective', but given your usual inside out & topsy turvy arguments it's probably what one should expect of you.

Let me try and and explain and hopefully relieve you of your confusion, Flossie ...

In the political world 'effective government' generally means one with the ability to govern freely. That does not necessarily mean 'good government', of course. We shall all just have to wait and see about that!

Hopefully you (and others) will recognise this post as a responsive reality and not be so confused by thinking you had never actually received any response.

A hearty toast to you, too, Flossie!

[ahinton]

So amongst that impressively Amazonian forest of words

Have you ever actually been to - i.e. up and down - the Amazon? No, of course not! So we can dismiss that one, then.

mostly expressing your usual kind comments about myself

I was, of course, doing nothing of the kind, preferring instead to try to address the subject which is very much up for research, consideraton and grabs rather than anyting that might susbstute for any such thing in a world in which you seem already to have decided what can snd should wrok! Ah, ell...

you are now really confirming that I was, in fact, correct to believe that you have not yet come up with a system that you feel would be better than FPTP? As I haven't either, we now appear to find ourselves in some significant accord, it would seem!

So let's celebrate this rare event with a warm evening toast to each other, ahinton!

I wonder if you could actually be any more tiresome than you have already demonstrated yourself to be but, somehow, I imagine that you are indeed capable of such...

Mon Dieu, this is tiresome indeed...