UK - Election 2015

[Lothian]

Note the absolute increase in the percentage share of the popular vote.

Irrelevant Party (1 MP)
UKIP+9.5

Main Opposition parties
SNP+3.2
GRN+2.8
LAB+1.4

Coalition Partners
CON+0.8
LD -15.1

On the above you would have expected a new Government

 

[angrysoba]

Forgive me if these figures are not 100% accurate, but how about this for a contrast:

Ukip have won over twice the votes that the SNP have won. They will probably only have 1 MP (thanks goodness). SNP will have 56. The SNP will puff themselves up as the legitimate voice of Scotland, and have a significant voice in national opposition politics, but with twice as many votes, UKIP will lose their leader and be an insignificant pimple on the backside of politics for the next 5 years. Somewhere in there resides fairness, apparently.

Sure it is fair. UKIP claim to speak for the whole of the UK, and SNP claim to speak for Scotland. The population of Scotland is about a tenth of the UK as a whole. A party that only gets Twice as much of the vote of the SNP across the whole of the UK is naturally far less popular among their presumed constituents than the SNP. There's no problem for me about that at all.

 

[3point14]

This was a UK national election. It's a percentage of the same population.

Fair point.

 

[ddt]

Yes, but Israel's system is specifically Party List which I think is worse than FTFP because it all but prohibits someone running a successful independent campaign.

It's disingenuous to the point only to Israel. But in Israel, if you disagree with a minor point of your party, you just start your own. Or if you're a popular TV presenter.

 

[Lothian]

Really, 56 out of 59 seats SNP, and yet the SNP's Independence for the Jocks campaign recently failed?

I suspect it would fail again. Ignore the MPs, The SNP got 50% of the popular vote in Scotland. A significant number of SNP supporters do not support independence.

 

[The Don]

Forgive me if these figures are not 100% accurate, but how about this for a contrast:

Ukip have won over twice the votes that the SNP have won. They will probably only have 1 MP (thanks goodness). SNP will have 56. The SNP will puff themselves up as the legitimate voice of Scotland, and have a significant voice in national opposition politics, but with twice as many votes, UKIP will lose their leader and be an insignificant pimple on the backside of politics for the next 5 years. Somewhere in there resides fairness, apparently.

They've stood in 10 times the number of seats as well, apples and oranges. The DUP has hardly any votes on a national basis at all but several seats.

IMO the better comparison is between UKIP 12% but 1 or 2 seats and LibDems.

Edited to add...

Libdems who have 8% of the vote but many more seats

 

[jimbob]

It's not better. It makes parties stronger because they select their own candidates from the list according to party loyalty. In the UK, although parties have the power of deselection, candidates can still win in constituencies regardless of powerful party backing. How could you possibly vote out Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage in such a system?

Yes,

That's why I preferred the AV+ system as it would have made it even easier to vote out an unpopular MP. True PR with party lists is a recipe for patronage. And the smaller centrist parties can remain in coalitions for different governments so could demand the same departmental brief.

FPTP is better than that.

 

[angrysoba]

It's disingenuous to the point only to Israel. But in Israel, if you disagree with a minor point of your party, you just start your own. Or if you're a popular TV presenter.

It's not disingenuous at all because I was responding to puppycow's point about Israel's form of PR, and I was saying that the Israeli form of PR is worse than FTFP. I am not talking about other forms of PR in that context.

 

[ddt]

It's not disingenuous at all because I was responding to puppycow's point about Israel's form of PR, and I was saying that the Israeli form of PR is worse than FTFP. I am not talking about other forms of PR in that context.

The "disingenuous" then was meant for Puppycow.

But seriously, I disagree with your conclusion. When it comes to ousting an unpopular MP in a FPTP like in GB, it's only the voters in that specific constituency who can accomplish that. And the party can just decide to put its important candidates in safe seats where the voters will vote for the party anyhow.

 

[angrysoba]

The "disingenuous" then was meant for Puppycow.

But seriously, I disagree with your conclusion. When it comes to ousting an unpopular MP in a FPTP like in GB, it's only the voters in that specific constituency who can accomplish that. And the party can just decide to put its important candidates in safe seats where the voters will vote for the party anyhow.

Then the constituents are rid of that MP one way or the other.

 

[The Don]

The "disingenuous" then was meant for Puppycow.

But seriously, I disagree with your conclusion. When it comes to ousting an unpopular MP in a FPTP like in GB, it's only the voters in that specific constituency who can accomplish that. And the party can just decide to put its important candidates in safe seats where the voters will vote for the party anyhow.

I'm sure the merits (or otherwise) of various forms of PR and FPTP have been discussed here before. Whatever happens, from my perspective I'd like:

• One or more local representatives I can turn to who are local and who are available - for all his flaws, I can go and meet with my local MP and discuss my issues with him
• A model which doesn't rely on slavish adherence to party policy. Lists for PR would tend to reward prominence and/or loyalty rather than effectiveness
• To vote for an individual rather than just a party

 

[ddt]

Farage not elected.
I concede defeat in the bet.
MikeG, what's my avatar gonna be?

ETA: quite a lot of people in Thanet South who had enough money to spare to lose a deposit.
And do I hear Farage sort-of blaming the SNP for his loss?

 

[The Don]

Nigel Farage fails to take Thanet South on a low (69%) turnout

 

[Wudang]

I suspect it would fail again. Ignore the MPs, The SNP got 50% of the popular vote in Scotland. A significant number of SNP supporters do not support independence.

A lot of my friends back in Scotland who used to vote Labour were referring to Labour as "red Tories" and were voting SNP.

 

[anglolawyer]

BBC now going for 331 seats for the Tories. It's a landslide!

Subtracting 4 IRA seats and the speaker from 650, that gives a very healthy majority of 331 - 314. They should be able to steer comfortably through the next few years even allowing for the usual bye-election reverses. The gamble of panicking and defecting to UKIP seems not to have paid off.

ETA by the way LJ, this seems to me to knock over both the exit poll and your own prognosis, since 331 is a whole different ball game from 316 (or whatever it was).

 

[The Don]

Just mentioned in the radio - now the boundary changes to ensure that it's easier to elect Conservatives will likely go ahead.

 

[Mikemcc]

Farage and Clegg have quit.

 

[Rum]

Today - UK public officially classed as 'Thick as *********** ******* ...

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 10. Please do not attempt to bypass the autocensor; type the words in full and allow the autocensor to mask them

 

[The Don]

UK public officially classed as 'Thick as *********** *******'.

I'm not sure that the Scots and Northern Irish can be considered as such. I'd accept criticism of the Welsh (three more Conservative MPs ). It's the English, and in particular those English who switched from Labour to UKIP who deserve a good talking to.

 

[MikeG]

I don't know why on earth anyone would say such a thing. Why would anyone assume that voting conservative requires one to be thick? Really, on a sceptic board, there isn't any thinking behind that silly assertion. I voted Conservative, I'm pleased with the result, (although desperate for the Lib Dems), and I am far from thick.