General Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281
All explaining the unfairness of the 1st past the post result.
However the right wing press must be worried, as they're already trying to counter-act these arguments, despite a Tory majority under '1st past the post' system'
It's not as if the BBC are unbiased either.
It's not all bad news, even if the result yesterday is only well received by Tory voters who are a mix of fundamentalists, the naive and the misinformed in my opinion.
It could be the beginning of the end of them and all parties who prop up this unjust system, it just depends if we decide to disengage with politics or actively engage in civil society.
The lines are drawn as far as I'm concerned.
I knew sense would prevail...
Labour did not admit the overspend last time,
Did not allow an EU vote
The SNP walked over Labour..
Immigration is their fault
No wonder people did not vote RED ED.he was not a Leader.
People need ambitions and to not sit at home and expect people to pay for them..
The worst vote for Labour since 1987 (sky news).
Has been interesting that on here all the Labour fans have kept very very quiet.
Why did ED give up the ghost and resign? ...most leaders battle on..
Hmm as for that gravestone cost £300.000? who paid for that lol
At the end of the day people decided and if Labour had won I am sure people would not be moaning about first past the post system!
Jog on and except the nation has decided in a big way.
The funniest thing in your post, was 'when the nation has decided'. !!!???
Is Maths not your strong point? 1 in 3 or less adults actually voted Tory, or don't you include opposition votes and non voters in your concept of our 'Great' nation. Are they persona non-grata and not true Brits then? 
And if you oppose the Tories then you're automatically a Labour voter or like Red Ed.
How simlpistic.
Do we live in the mid 1980s?
Might look like that soon..
I'm happy Labour are on the knees, same with the Liberal Democrats, UKIP too.
I think the Green are pretty inept too.
If we had PR the SNP would have about 20% less seats and they wouldn't be 'walking over' any party South of the Border, as you so bluntly put it.
But that is what'll happen to the Tories.
Why don't you 'jog on' an do the maths around PR and 1st past the post.
Anne-Marie Morris represents just over 3 in 10 adults in our consittuency.
If that's fair then please explain why.
But please focus on the electoral process. Not what might or might not happen after a PR election. I am not interested in speculation over the economy, security, and about 'sense prevailing' their all subjective views.
What is the logic behind first past the post?
Do you ven think it is fair?
If not does it even bother you?
Or is the end result the only important outcome, not what happens to your fellow country men and women in the coming years?
Enlighten us..
I'll leave you to 'wonder' about all that. x
Labour has had it ...lost it's way and if people are honest they know it.
I am pleased Conservatives won...as many are.
Greens I think would have done better if only they would give us some kind of protection ..Russia off the Cornish coast a few months ago was bit of a worry.
I agree with you on points 1 and 3, the Green idealism does sort of depend upon world peace.
But the complete opposite to core green policy, which is to allow further environmentally reckless policies under the Tories is not the answer.
What did you think the Russians were going to do off the Cornish coast that they couldn't do from Moscow?
I think as you do A Frame, but if you grew up with the fear of nuclear war and anti-cold war propaganda then you can see why many voted for the party of Churchill.
Being a cynic, I wonder if it was a hoax, perhaps Dave Cameron set it up with his media buddies while he was holidaying nearby.
The nice thing about us now having a Tory majority is that they will no longer be held back by the Lib Dems.
So many things can now be sorted out. Economy is in the best hands. Welfare waste can be further reduced. More people can have jobs. Businesses can make investiments with confidence. Etc. Etc.
This time you really can say things can only get better!
@Paul, you seem to have missed the point about proportional representation completely.
Do you even know what it means?
1st past the post = Conservatives with 51 % majority nationally
Whereas PR - a fairer reflection = Conservatives with 37% nationally and therefore no majority.
And that figure falls when you consider representation of the 33.9 % non voters.
Some would like the option to register a vote of no confidence, but they cannot.
The Tories therefore represent 25% of all adults in the UK.
I did the Maths.
Anne Marie Morris represent 32.6% of all adults in the Newton abbot Constituency.
Just over 1 in 3.
Then apply that to your map.
Is there really any point in voting when the outcome produces majorities for parties like Cameron's or Blair's New Labour?
The electorate was given the chance to change the system with the 2011 AV referendum and chose by a massive majority not to do so, that opportunity certainly won't be repeated in this parliament.
'And that figure falls when you consider around 30 % non voters.' - What is that suppose to mean? The Little Green Men on Mars, they didn't vote either.
The main change I'd like to see to government is a big reduction in it's size. 650 MPs is too many. 400 would do. Also do we really need so many layers of government?
Central government, regional assemblies, county councils, district councils, town councils, wards.
Surely you only need central government and county council. All the rest are a waste. I'm not saying the others don't currently do a good job, just think we could save a load of money with some efficiency.
Becareful what you wish for Paul
@burnside
AV was totally different to PR and AV would be more complicated
After every election, the losers always bleat on about proportional representation, usually it used to be the liberals.
Tories, when they lose, I'm glad to say, take it on the chin.
Huw Matthews in that BBC link I postedthe final graph showed that for the first time in 20years Labour had more votes overall than the tories.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bkjmiller/the-general-election-result-in-maps-lots-of-maps-a0ii#.rd5JdjY6a more maps to look at lol
Sorry, just looked at it again.
What they are saying is that it took more votes for Labour to elect each of their MPs - Not that Lab got more votes than Cons overall.
Election Turnout = 66.1%
Do so few believe in democracy?
Or is it really a democracy, so should we bother?
Tories gain 51% majority with 38% of the vote. In principle that's not fair no matter who wins, Tory or Labour. Or anyone else.
My point isn't simplistically about those 2 parties, The two party system is defunct. I despise Labour and the Lib Dems as well as the Tories, But The Tories and UKIP are in a different class of vileness.
The politicians that is, I don't know how I feel about Tory voters.
So what do the 38% of the 66.1% percent who voted amount to as a percentage of the adult population as a whole.
25%
Yes the Tories only represnt 1:4 of us
Labour got 31% of the vote so they represent less that 1:4
The point here is that about three quarters of British people are not Tory.
Even if everyone voted and the turnout was 100% the result would not be a true reflection of people's political preferences given the distorted, undemocratic 1st past the post system. It's just like a weird horse race.
Ironically for the Tories who are dead set on maintaining the Union, the SNP profited form the first past the post system, under PR Labour's 20% share of the vote would have translated into seats and the prospect of Scotland breaking away would not be what now seem a certainty.
Labour's failure in Scotland under the current 1st past the post system has delivered a Tory victory, so if Tory voters are cheered by their triumph the rejoicing may be short lived as the system looks set to make Great Britain a three party state.
So Cameron's victory comes at a huge cost, which may in time lead to the demise of the Tory party.
The narrow majority gained under the first past the post system is worse than that of Major's party in 1992.
Cameron looks equally inept in maintaining discipline and cohesion among his back benchers and the right of the party.
He also has to satisfy voters who would've opted for UKIP had he not promised an EU referendum.
If we had a fair and representative system like PR and a party, any party, including the Tories, even UKIP won an overall majority then I would accept it.
Even if I hated that party, i would accept the will of the people. It would just mean the nation was predominantly right-wing or racist or that most people prioritized the economy, even though wealth is not fairly distributed and poverty is increasing in my opinion. But I'd still accept it and then either do something to change it as fundamentally the electoral system under PR would a level playing. Or I could just emigrate.
It's not about 'PR would give us weak government' or this or that party would get in. That's about governance not electoral process and it's based on subjective views and personal political preference.
So Anne Marie Morris represents about 3 in 10 adults in the consituency and the Tories nationally represent 1 in 4 adults.
I include those who did not vote because protest votes are not counted in the stats and they should be.
If more people vote to say the system is broken than the nearest political candidate surely that says something.
But it is ignored.
On the radio today I heard someone talking about PR and they asked whether the Tories would have the generosity to acknowledge the distorted result that is produced by first pat the post..
So would they be capable of such generosity?
Maybe any Tories reading this could answer a simple 'yes' or 'no' and what do others think, would it be a 'yes' or a 'no' from Labour? What about UKIP who held one seat, lost another yet had 4 million voting for them, or the Greens who quadrupled the number of votes from 2010 and yet still have the one seat in Brighton.
And what does answering 'no' signify?
Is it just about winning and defeating an enemy?
How do we live together for the next 5 years if we are so divided as nation?
Can those divisions be fixed?
Does it matter if huge sections of the country are disenfranchised?
Or is your attitude simply 'f**f them'
Or is a Tory victory in 2015 actually the beginning of the end of Great Britain, social malaise, increased poverty, civil disorder and irreversable environmental devastation. And is the main threat of war really from Russia or will civil disorder escalate into civil war?
So would ansering 'no' mean you're really part of a collective identity called Great Britain or England or Scotland if this question was asked north of the border.
Or is answering 'no' a selfish act based on a belief that the only British people who matter are the ones who voted the same way as you, even if they only make up 25% of the population?
I've seen the Lib dems fall, Labour too. If the next 5 years are anything like the last 5 and the Thatcher era, then given the Conservatives precarious position then I think the end is nigh for the Tories.
But in the meantime, some of the most vulnerable in our society will have to endure yet more suffering under one of the most unemptahtic, uncaring and cruel regimes in the developed worl
That is how I perceive what many call the 'nasty party' and I refer to their MPs.
But I am beginning to question if those who vote Tory are equally as unempathetic, uncaring and cruel. Or am I wrong?
And how do we live side by side?
I think there isn't a great difference between the politics of the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems but i campaigned for PR under the coalition and under New Labour. Although I dislike all three, I do feel that the Lib Dems and Labour do genuinely have a concern for the well-being of the people, even though their political ideologies are misguided in my opinion.
The conservatives on the other hand are morally bankrupt, but that is to be expected by party which aims to 'conserve' a status quo which benefits an arrogant rich, upper class elite. Most of us are just 'oiks' to them.
That's why people do not react in the same way to a Labour victory, their roots were from within the masses, not stemming from a rich minority. Even if they are now far removed from ordinary, working people.
Culturally there is a huge difference, rural Tory heartlands only represent one side of the story nationally.
I just feel ashamed to be a part of this country.
What was the point in voting on Thursday.
What difference did it make?
Join Caroline Lucas's call for "cross-party progressives" to work together over the next 5 years to achieve some form of PR: http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/caroline-cross-party-progressives-must-work-together
It idnt take long the tories have just signed a £780 million privatisation deal with 11 companies, some of whom been taken to task for sub standard care. You were warned.
Yes it is happening already.
PR has to happen, no other meaningful change can occur without it. I'd join a local PR group, campaign only on that issue with a broad base.
We need real activism, not just online discussions.
I don't really understand why everyone seems so surprised at this election result. Surely everyone realises that this was an aberration created by what was about to happen in Scotland.
The SNP drew 45% of the vote for their independence campaign and that 45% were always going to vote the same way in the GE. At the same time all the pollsters were talking about a slim Labour majority or a hung parliament. The SNP had already declared that they wanted to 'lock the Tories out' so it was already set in stone that they would support a Labour minority regardless of what Milliband was saying. When, not if, that happened the SNP would be able to demand whatever they liked for Scotland knowing that they would get it. Around 5% of the 'Better Together' voters put aside their anti-independence stance knowing that the SDP were going to rob the rest of the country in favour of Scotland. Bear in mind this was NOT an independence vote. The remaining non-Nationalists essentially split their forces between at least 3 parties which again was always going to happen. Thus a massive gain in seats for the SNP was inevitable. This was known throughout the UK but particularly in Scotland where Salmond was already talking about writing Labour's budget. It was therefore obvious that following the GE Scotland would be calling the shots regarding not just Gt Britain but the whole of the UK.
Voters in the rest of GB (forget NI for a minute as I don't think the main parties even put up candidates there anymore) were aware that this would be the case and were fearful of the outcome. Sturgeon knew this which is why she kept banging on about 'the English have nothing to fear from the SNP'.
So where could English and Welsh voters go if they didn't want to be ruled by Scotland. Well Labour was out, because that would result in SNP ruling the roost, so that just left the Tories. LibDem voters swarmed across (it was a relatively easy decision as they were already part of the coalition) as did many floating voters. None of the other parties, particularly the Greens, UKIP and even Plaid, made the inroads that were expected. Only UKIP made any meaningful percentage gain against the main parties (if they hadn't the Tory majority would have been much greater) or anything like the gains pollsters were predicting and this was purely because voters did not want a Labour Govt run by SNP.
Hence, a majority Tory Govt is returned based primarily on a fear of the consequences of the SNP having power over England and Wales. So what of Scotland? Well, the SNP have 56 seats and absolutely no power at all! If they had been a bit less bullish before the election they would now be in power with a Labour Govt.
So what of the future? Let's be realistic and say that SNP aren't going to go away until they get independence. Therefore SNP will always win the vast majority of seats until that day or until the unionists unite in one party to oppose them and that doesn't appear to be on the horizon. So Scotland will become independent, either through Westminster or more likely through a European Court decision, against the wishes of the majority of it's citizens.
After that the rest of the UK will settle down to the usual tit-for-tat politics we are all used to. Neither of the big parties will vote in PR - why would they? It would only serve to weaken their own positions.
According to this UKIP would have had 82 seats
Labour 199 and Conservative 242 if PR
Sshhh Labour... thats even less than now with PR lol
Will they have Liz whatshername as a Leader?
I think Labour would do even worse than that under PR.
There are far more left and centre left parties to split the vote than right and centre right.
This isn't about whether Labour or Conservatives would do better or worse. It's about having a parliament that fairly represents the views of the population and some form of PR is the only way to achieve that. What is blatantly unjust is that two-thirds of the country voted against the Conservatives and yet the Conservatives get a majority control. Labour is not exempt from blame in creating this situation - they had the opportunity at the referendum in 2011 to promote PR as party policy but failed to do so because they were (are?) still wed to a 2-party system which by-and-large is the inevitable outcome of a First Past The Post system, especially when constituency boundaries are engineered to favour a ruling party.
If the Tories won under PR I'd respect it as the outcome of a legitimate and democratic process.
But I wouldn't like it
Just because I'm anti Tory, it does not make me pro-Labour. Are some of you that ignorant?
And the SNP would've won a majority in Scotland regardless of which electoral system was used.
The near future might clearly indicate that most Scottish people do not want to remain in the union. and that is their democratic right. at least a yes/no referendum is democratic, unlike the general election under first past the post.
Not all English people are unionists anyway, let the Scots have their independence, then devolve more power to the English regions.
This country has one serious hangover from empire still, it's about time we realized we're no longer that important and opening up London as an unregulated world business capital is not benefitting the majority who live in the regions and other nations. The ewealth does not filter down.
'Democracy For Sale' is simply Great Britain's last stand. When our establishment can no longer exploit other nations resources and peoples in order to uphold our farce of a democracy and standards of living and other nations steal a march on us, then the establishment will simply expoit and subdue it's own people to save itself.
It just so happens that the majority of Tory voters remember when Britain was 'great' and still think we are great. Psychologically their personal own identity is embedded in being part of a successful, developed nation, so the economy becomes more important than the plight of less fortunate citizens and human rights, environmental protection, etc.
And when demise of empire transforms into the demise of the union and then the demise of the nation, those traditional voters become defensive and enter ino denial, just like the whole political system which lacks any positive vision for the future.
Labour included. Okay?
Then politics just becomes tribal and 'dog eat dog', as this forum demonstrates in microcosm.
The election result isn't just about a competition, like winning a game as if it's football or the 6 nations. It's not about a short election campaign, it is about the present and the future, or it is to those who give a damn about others.
But reading a lot of posts on here, it's as if the final whistle has already blown, and we should go home for our dinner a forget about democracy.
That just tells me we've become a subservient nation of losers.
This election has just further divided 'Broken Britain'.
But annoying voices like mine may soon be silenced.
Opposition voices and the right to protest will soon be a thing of the past if the Tories get their way and tackle the Human Rights Act, completeing the process that began under Thatcher, continued under a disciple of hers (Blair) and will be finished under Cameron.
Note how I again included Labour.
Yes LABOUR!!
We probably won't be able to discuss these issues on sites like these in the future, largely thanks to quirks of first past the post which threw up a Tory majority.
It'll end up like the US, like Orwell's 1984.
I don't really blame Tory voters. It was a fluke of the system as more people voted against the Tories than for them. But the corrupt system is reality.
Who cares about fairness?
Churchill led this country against the fascists in the name of 'democracy', and now his party is the main threat to democracy and human rights in this country.
Makes you proud to be British.
Heard today that, London excepted, more men have walked on the moon than there are non-tory MPs in the south of England, however you define that.
Oh well, at least the far SW got it's all important rail line pledges, 'What's that Sooty, they didn't?'
So just to summarise then:
Some of us are ignorant, tribal, unfair, subservient losers who don't give a damn about others?
Hmm, the art of debate is being seriously degraded on this site. You need to understand that not all posts that are posted after your post are replies TO YOUR post. Many others have important things to say and they may also be replied to.
....And I am still Proud to be British!
