UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Who will you vote for in the 2015 UK Election?

Conservative
7
23%
Labour
3
10%
Lib Dem
3
10%
UKIP
2
6%
Green
11
35%
SNP
1
3%
Other
4
13%
 
Total votes : 31

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 9 May 2015, 01:44

Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:326, it's finally iron clad. The Tories have secured a single party majority.

With 36.9%. Such victory. Much representative democracy. Many mandate. Wow.

Beats the Greens no matter what voting system you apply. ;)
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 6037
+1s received: 905
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Joe » 9 May 2015, 04:51

Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:326, it's finally iron clad. The Tories have secured a single party majority.

With 36.9%. Such victory. Much representative democracy. Many mandate. Wow.


Under PR we'd have only lost two seats. I hate UKIP with a passion but I would prefer them to be on the 100 or so they should be getting than on one, because it's hideous as it is now. Sigh. :/
Image
User avatar
Joe
 
Posts: 361
Joined: 25 December 2012, 23:21
Location: مدينة برستن, شمال غرب إنجلترا
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Brenden » 9 May 2015, 07:46

Marmaduke wrote:
Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:326, it's finally iron clad. The Tories have secured a single party majority.

With 36.9%. Such victory. Much representative democracy. Many mandate. Wow.

Beats the Greens no matter what voting system you apply. ;)

It's not a zero-sum game. It's the means by which a country of sixty million different people is governed. The system should reflect that.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6491
+1s received: 1400
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Severelius » 9 May 2015, 08:00

I think I've figured out the worst thing about the Tories winning: They're all going to be so fucking smug about it.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2852
+1s received: 212
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 9 May 2015, 10:06

Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:
Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:326, it's finally iron clad. The Tories have secured a single party majority.

With 36.9%. Such victory. Much representative democracy. Many mandate. Wow.

Beats the Greens no matter what voting system you apply. ;)

It's not a zero-sum game. It's the means by which a country of sixty million different people is governed. The system should reflect that.

Not everyone's interests are anything like in the interests of the whole. Let's look at the results publish by Channel 4 of the election run via the D'hondt method, LINK. First, we'll acknowledge that this result is speculative and we can't compare the votes returned from one voting system to accurately reflect the results of another. It also, from it's total, thinks that Northern Ireland are going to suddenly swing round and start voting Westminster's way, which is nonsense so we'll be working of an assumed slightly lower number across the board to account for the votes that would always stay with DUP/SF etc.

The country would be sitting here today still waiting to find out who will be governing. We'd still have no idea what the result was. The financial markets would drop into a significant all whilst we wait to hear the announced inevitability that the government would actually be a Conservative, UKIP, DUP coallition as that would be the only party that could form and command the confidence of the commons. Instead of the Conservatives, you'd have a conservative lead, unnecessarily fragile and conflicted right-wing trifecta of evil. Labour, who swore off any coalition with SNP going into the election, would be allied with the Lib Dems and The Greens, The Greens become the new Lib Dems and are seen to get absolutely nothing done with their record number of seats because they are the bottom rung of a ladder standing as opposition to a 50 vote majority.

The result we have has come about because local people have voted in, fairly and representatively of that area, the person that the majority want to see represent them in Westminster. It doesn't matter that the Greens have a 1 million supporters nationwide. If 10,000 of them vote in Imaginary Town and 15 thousand fellow residents vote Labour then it is fair and representative that Labour take that seat. The only way you ever see more seats is through a massive increase in the number of constituencies and there are already too many. Take a 650 seat system to a 900 seat system and yes, you'll probably see a lot more Green seats. But we'll have an unwieldy and disproportionately complex and expensive system relative to our size that will only serve to stall itself in deadlock and see nothing done.

Yes, FPTP has not fairly represented voters of Green and UKIP and I do agree to an extent that that's not right, but the current proposals for it's replacement are not fit for purpose. FPTP, for all it's faults, has again seated a stable government capable of effective and efficient leadership for which the country is better off. I still can't see how AV fans can sit here bemoaning the apparent undemocratic nature of the result and then, straight faced, propose a fundamentally undemocratic system to replace it.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 6037
+1s received: 905
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Ciniselli » 9 May 2015, 16:05

A couple of pieces on the "deficit myth" which the Conservatives have been banging on (and which apparently was sufficient to dupe the electorate)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh- ... _hp_ref=tw

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opini ... egion&_r=0 (from Krugman)

In particular, the following is particularly relevant:

Now, every piece of this story is demonstrably, ludicrously wrong. Pre-crisis Britain wasn’t fiscally profligate. Debt and deficits were low, and at the time everyone expected them to stay that way; big deficits only arose as a result of the crisis. The crisis, which was a global phenomenon, was driven by runaway banks and private debt, not government deficits. There was no urgency about austerity: financial markets never showed any concern about British solvency. And Britain, which returned to growth only after a pause in the austerity drive, has made up none of the ground it lost during the coalition’s first two years.


Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?


This whole "living within our means" fallacy that the government has been peddling (successfully, unfortunately) is explicitly meant to simplify a complex economy and act as a marketable campaign message which places all of the government's failures on its opposition. It is not good policymaking. It is naked, cynical, populism.

5 more years of economic illiteracy it shall be. Still, it could be much worse.
Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself.
User avatar
Ciniselli
 
Posts: 311
+1s received: 3
Joined: 8 March 2015, 16:17
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Severelius » 9 May 2015, 17:12

Honestly my only vindication in this result is that without any Liberal Democrat presence to hold back their worst instincts, the Tories are going to get too smug and over-confident and go too far at some point in the next 5 years and they won't have their convenient little partner to blame for any problems. It'll be all on them.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2852
+1s received: 212
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Salomé » 9 May 2015, 19:26

Marmaduke wrote:...we'll acknowledge that this result is speculative and we can't compare the votes returned from one voting system to accurately reflect the results of another.

I wish more people would mention this when they talk about PR in relation to GE2015.

Marmaduke wrote:The country would be sitting here today still waiting to find out who will be governing. We'd still have no idea what the result was. The financial markets would drop into a significant all whilst we wait to hear the announced inevitability that the government would actually be a Conservative, UKIP, DUP coallition as that would be the only party that could form and command the confidence of the commons. Instead of the Conservatives, you'd have a conservative lead, unnecessarily fragile and conflicted right-wing trifecta of evil. Labour, who swore off any coalition with SNP going into the election, would be allied with the Lib Dems and The Greens, The Greens become the new Lib Dems and are seen to get absolutely nothing done with their record number of seats because they are the bottom rung of a ladder standing as opposition to a 50 vote majority.

Who cares? Yes, FPTP makes for a good night's entertainment but that's no redemption for its many, many shortfalls. Call me a ignorant liberal all you want but the markets can take a fucking hike when election times come around. I'll take economic and business concerns into account when I vote, and if the markets have to wait a few days every five years to find out the democratic will of a country, that's no weight on my mind.

Marmaduke wrote:The result we have has come about because local people have voted in, fairly and representatively of that area, the person that the majority want to see represent them in Westminster. It doesn't matter that the Greens have a 1 million supporters nationwide. If 10,000 of them vote in Imaginary Town and 15 thousand fellow residents vote Labour then it is fair and representative that Labour take that seat. The only way you ever see more seats is through a massive increase in the number of constituencies and there are already too many. Take a 650 seat system to a 900 seat system and yes, you'll probably see a lot more Green seats. But we'll have an unwieldy and disproportionately complex and expensive system relative to our size that will only serve to stall itself in deadlock and see nothing done.

Interesting that you use the words "representative" and "majority". Two things that FPTP makes no effort to ensure and in the case of this election failed spectacularly to deliver on. We have unrepresentative candidates voted in by minorities all over the country. You can only possibly call FPTP fair and representative of the majority in a two party constituency, of which I reckon you'll struggle to find one. We don't live in the era of two party politics any more.

Marmaduke wrote:Yes, FPTP has not fairly represented voters of Green and UKIP and I do agree to an extent that that's not right, but the current proposals for it's replacement are not fit for purpose. FPTP, for all it's faults, has again seated a stable government capable of effective and efficient leadership for which the country is better off. I still can't see how AV fans can sit here bemoaning the apparent undemocratic nature of the result and then, straight faced, propose a fundamentally undemocratic system to replace it.

There are so many different forms of PR. Time will need to be spent deciding which one adequately suits the country, so I won't dwell on the best solution other than to say that I think AV is very nearly as bad as FPTP. Yes, FPTP hs delievered an outright majority, but how can you so easily brush aside the fact that only 2/5 of voters actually wanted that majority? I wonder whether this comes down to a fundamental disagreement over what our democracy is supposed to represent: Stability and the British state as it is now, or its people.
User avatar
Salomé
 
Posts: 824
Joined: 30 December 2012, 22:00
Location: Edinburgh
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Severelius » 9 May 2015, 19:58

I'm kind of over the stability thing.

If you ask me part of why this country has fallen into the political black hole of disinterest and apathy that it has is because things have been far too 'stable' with the typical status quo for far too long now.

Call me a dumb liberal all you like, but a good bit of instability to shake up the scenery might be just what politics in this country needs. We're still playing politics like it's the 1980s, but shit has changed and the political system that governs us needs to start reflecting that.

And before someone brings it up, no. UKIP's bizarre rise to prominence is not a dramatic shake-up. A sudden surge from a party largely comprised of defecting or exiled Tories is not a radical change.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2852
+1s received: 212
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Jacketh » 10 May 2015, 19:58

How on earth can a system be deemed 'not fit for purpose' when we're in a clear minority of the countries that still use FPTP? The majority of the Europe as well as South America use PR. I don't know why America doesn't, but it might have something to do with the fact it is diverse and has a large landmass, being that having two parties (that are in a sense coalitions with a broad spectrum of ideologies themselves) is the best fit. I don't know many strong arguments against replacing the Electoral College in America. Ross Perot probably should had got some representation when he got 18 million votes in 1992, though.

The argument that we will be 'waiting' for a government is absolutely stupid. The whole 'wake up in the morning and have a new government' thing is just for those who like a bit of drama. We've agreed that a government will have a five year term. If it means taking two or three weeks to sort out what that government is, then so be it. The markets in other countries manage to survive just fine; so will ours.

It does matter that 1 million people voted Green and have no representation. It does matter that 4 million people voted UKIP and have no representation. The definition of democracy is 'a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives'. Clearly, the 'population' are not having the 'elected representatives' we desire. Your argument is that constituencies are having the 'elected representatives' they want' based on a flawed winner-takes-all system. A winner-takes-all system means that the entire electorate cannot have their views represented. And hey, guess what, under the new proposed constituencies that will be voted through, the Tories would of had something a majority of 52. Democracy at its finest.

A lot of talk about Labour moving back to the right and so called Blairism. I imagine Andy Burnham will be re-elected and seek to become the second coming of Tony Blair, trying to appeal to businesses, the middle class and hoping The Sun won't destroy him (they will, he is from Liverpool) - It won't work. They should stick to where they are or even go further left.
User avatar
Jacketh
 
Posts: 522
+1s received: 254
Joined: 30 January 2015, 00:12
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Brenden » 17 June 2015, 01:04

ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6491
+1s received: 1400
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 17 June 2015, 07:33

It's time to get over it, Brenden.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 6037
+1s received: 905
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Brenden » 17 June 2015, 12:06

Marmaduke wrote:It's time to get over it, Brenden.

Sorry, but no, it's not.

It's time you looked past your pro-Conservative bias and saw the current system for what it is: unrepresentative.

Governance is not a game. An election is not something to be won. And a country of 60 million should not be ruled by a single party with only a slight plurality of support. That goes both ways — Labour should also never unilaterally rule with a mere plurality, as they did under Tony.

The same issue is at hand in Canada and the United States, and I will continually spread this message so long as these democracies continue to be unrepresentative.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6491
+1s received: 1400
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Jacketh » 17 June 2015, 17:36

Marmaduke wrote:It's time to get over it, Brenden.


Because that is the right attitude. :oface:

Regardless of the fact FPTP is a flawed system in terms of how it works, the more pressing matter is that the 2015 result was the most flawed ever. I really don't think that the fact 3.8 million people come out in support of UKIP and 1 million voted for the Greens yet they have virtually no representation whatsoever.

Because of the flawed system, it has gifted the Conservatives a majority, whereby if they play the cards right they can implement whatever policy they desire, as long as they're united. Now from what I can tell you're a Conservative supporter, but the fact is, the fact the Conservatives are in that position could lead to a new Bill of Rights (of which most people would not support) and the legalising fox hunting again, again something most would not support. Just recently there has been talk of scrapping the maintenance grant, again, I don't see the argument in favour of this. As far as I am concerned, the Tories are not in the position to be carrying out these policies. They do not have a mandate from the people; they have a mandate from the electoral system. The fact they're in the position they are now and have that power isn't something you should just 'get over' if you want to bring about change. It doesn't work like that.
User avatar
Jacketh
 
Posts: 522
+1s received: 254
Joined: 30 January 2015, 00:12
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 17 June 2015, 19:51

The people have been offered AV. In 2011, 42% of the electorate went to the polls - a surprisingly high turnout - and 68% of them voted to keep FPTP.

The people have selected the means by which they want they want to be polled - by a overwhelming majority of two to one - and that means has drawn a result.

68% of the electorate have had their vote taken the way they would prefer it to be.

I accept that you would prefer an AV result, but the fact remains that 68% of the British people would seem to prefer a one-party government.

Your vote not being proportionately represented - at least to my point of view - whilst upsetting for you, is democratically sound. It is what the majority of the people want.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 6037
+1s received: 905
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Brenden » 17 June 2015, 20:43

AV is a massive straw man on your part and you know it. It would have been skim-milk reform and is far from a good form of proportional representation, if it can even be considered a form of PR at all.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 6491
+1s received: 1400
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Eirik » 18 June 2015, 11:22

Marmaduke wrote:The people have been offered AV. In 2011, 42% of the electorate went to the polls - a surprisingly high turnout - and 68% of them voted to keep FPTP.


Don't be absurd- nobody voted to keep FPTP, they voted to reject AV because it's convoluted and would barely have made a difference anyway. The AV referendum was a supreme example of using a question to control the answer.
User avatar
Eirik
 
Posts: 470
Joined: 28 July 2013, 21:47
Location: London

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Ciniselli » 18 June 2015, 13:15

Much as I actually do genuinely prefer AV, it is pretty clear why that referendum was carried out. Eirik's right, it was carried out in full knowledge that it would fail so the govt and their supporters could point at it and go "Look at that! A ringing endorsement for the current system. We've discussed voting reform now, so put up and shut up."

Of course, we haven't discussed voting reform. We've discussed one alternative which was already unpopular and fairly obscure.
Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself.
User avatar
Ciniselli
 
Posts: 311
+1s received: 3
Joined: 8 March 2015, 16:17
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Severelius » 18 June 2015, 19:21

It was less a referendum on voting reform and more a referendum on how much people understood one particular option for a different system.

Hardly the ringing democratic endorsement of the current system that Tories are so quick to paint it as so they can handwave away anyone that rightfully calls bullshit on them getting total political power with only 30-odd% of the actual vote share.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2852
+1s received: 212
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: UK Election - Who are you voting for?

Unread postby Burns » 19 June 2015, 04:15

Brenden wrote:



Haha the moment after I watched that video, I knew someone would post it in this thread. CGP Grey's videos are all super good. I would encourage ya'll to check out this one too. It's very well done and his video about the policies of each UK party is awesome as well.

User avatar
Burns
 
Posts: 122
+1s received: 14
Joined: 11 February 2013, 23:58
Country: United States (us)

Previous

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 7 guests