In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On May 08 2015 23:56 Lonyo wrote: Only 36% of people voted for them. Even with a referendum on the EU, 100% of Tory voters would have to vote yes AND THEN another 14% of the population.
Even 100% of Conservative and UKIP voters doesn't reach 50% of the population, and if not all of them vote yes on a referendum, there would be no exit. It's very unlikely that even with a vote 50% would vote yes.
It's even more unlikely that they'd hold a referendum if they thought we'd vote to leave.
On May 08 2015 23:53 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh God what a disaster. And now, there will be that referendum for the Brexit.
Having lived in London for seven years, I have to say that the firepower of conservative media, and the extent of their propaganda explains quite a lot about why so many turkeys voted for Christmas yesterday.
Honestly, I'm glad to have left that place, and I wish good luck to anyone living there who is not a banker.
I think you hugely exaggerate the degree to which there are meaningful differences between the Conservatives and Labour.
I don't know if that would be good news or bad news. Based on French experience, you might be right and it's terrible news. I somewhat still believe that the Labour wouldn't have gone for this completely ridiculous austerity package, but maybe I'm wrong. After all, the socialist (lol) party in France has gone down that road, so I guess everything is possible.
On May 08 2015 21:35 ahswtini wrote: wondered how long it would be before the ignorant ukip bashing began
actually me/my social group/family are all generally engaged individuals, which is probably why no-one I know voted ukip, which I am pretty happy with.
same
Last time I looked, which was a couple of elections ago I think, they had some policies I agreed with. Pro nuclear power and grammar schools, and that was about it. If you ignore the whole Europe thing they aren't _all_ bad. Just their main bits which are...
On May 08 2015 23:32 KwarK wrote: Lib-Dems got fucked.
I really think the strategy of saying "we will coalition with whoever gets the most votes" was misguided. It made it impossible to vote for them if you wanted tories out, or indeed if you wanted them in. Though to be honest, even if they hadn't said it, everyone knew this would be what they'd do, so yeah they were fucked from the start.
I had no sympathy for libdem, so I might be biased, but seriously I'm surprised they even vote any seat with that horrendous campaign. Is that serious ?
"We have no idea, no backbone, but the other two parties suck so vote for us !" It looks like a speech from François Bayrou.
This makes me glad that Germany has some form of proportional representation, it's crazy what the SNP can do with so few voters. Geographic distribution shouldn't be such a huge factor.
Each SNP vote counted for approx. 1.8x as many votes as overall average (4.7-ish % of the population got 8.7% or something of the seats) SNP required about 22k votes per seat, Conservatives something like 34k votes per seat, UKIP 3.8m votes per seat.
On May 09 2015 00:34 Lonyo wrote: Each SNP vote counted for approx. 1.8x as many votes as overall average (4.7-ish % of the population got 8.7% or something of the seats) SNP required about 22k votes per seat, Conservatives something like 34k votes per seat, UKIP 3.8m votes per seat.
Democracy.
I think it's hardly the blame of the Scottish National Party that their voters are mostly in one geographic region.
It is a little ridiculous that UKIP got more than twice as many votes as the SNP but only a single seat...it's just the way the system works though I guess.
I'm happy enough with the result though, I'm pretty sure the SNP did help the Conservatives a fair bit by wiping out Labour in Scotland and putting some voters in England off Labour due to the perceived threat of a possible Lab/SNP coalition.
Also the Lib Dems did get totally fucked, unjustly I think.
On May 09 2015 00:39 jello_biafra wrote: I'm happy enough with the result though, I'm pretty sure the SNP did help the Conservatives a fair bit by wiping out Labour in Scotland and putting some voters in England off Labour due to the perceived threat of a possible Lab/SNP coalition.
yeah, I'm guessing a lot of people who may have voted the Tories tactically are feeling vindicated in their vote after seeing the SNP sweep Scotland
This looks like it could open the possibility of a Conservative/Ukip coalition which would have been terrible.
Of course if a system like this was in place the result would have been different as people would no longer 'tactically' vote for the party that is most likely to beat what they do not want.
What would UKIP be without the EU? The party would probably vanish from sight within a few years. It's also the only political entity that gives them a fair amount of political representation.
On May 09 2015 01:35 Maenander wrote: What would UKIP be without the EU?
Oddly enough, UKIP have actually evolved beyond being a single issue party. By that rationale, the SNP should have disbanded upon losing the independence referendum yet now they have 90%+ of the seats they ran in
I actually think the FPTP system makes quite a lot of sense. If you can't win a single regional majority that says quite a lot about how relevant your party is in real-life politics. Picking up the scraps everywhere shouldn't really be a successful political strategy, after all nobody lives in 'the UK' but in some actual town or region, so if you don't have any relevance in any single one of them why would should you get proportional representation at all?
On May 09 2015 02:38 Nyxisto wrote: I actually think the FPTP system makes quite a lot of sense. If you can't win a single regional majority that says quite a lot about how relevant your party is in real-life politics. Picking up the scraps everywhere shouldn't really be a successful political strategy, after all nobody lives in 'the UK' but in some actual town or region, so if you don't have any relevance in any single one of them why would should you get proportional representation at all?
Except you end up with tactical voting where you vote for someone that you don't like to keep out someone you hate and the tragedy of the Lib-Dems. I like FPTP because it creates strong majorities who can actually govern but it's certainly not fair or democratic.
On May 09 2015 01:35 Maenander wrote: What would UKIP be without the EU?
Oddly enough, UKIP have actually evolved beyond being a single issue party. By that rationale, the SNP should have disbanded upon losing the independence referendum yet now they have 90%+ of the seats they ran in
What? I don't see the parallels.
The SNP lost the referendum, and even if they would have won it, the political landscape of Scotland would change and the SNP would become something like the Tories or Labour for Scotland.
But hey, maybe UKIP is that multifaceted party you wish to vote for, and I was wrong. I am really not too much into UK politics or the psychology of living on an island, so I wouldn't know.
Btw I am actually not against the UK leaving the EU, the current membership is half-hearted anyway.
Lib Dems lost like all of the student vote as soon as they didn't give the tuition fee restructuring. As soon as they didn't do that because Conservatives practically said "nope, not happening" all the students got pissed and changed or got disheartened by politics as a hole and didn't vote. Thus they lose there seats in England. Add in the Scotland fact that everyone was voting SNP because they got the best of everything. SNP leader has said she "does not want another referendum on leaving the UK" but someone people who voted for them before still think its a possibility and the people who didn't vote for them now trust the party more due to that.
Was always going to be incredibly tough for Lib Dems to hold on to anything and im surprised Nick Clegg was able to keep his seat lol.
Oh well, its over now. Now we look forward and turn this into debating on policies that the house of commons produce than the election that has been won in a huge majority by conservatives
On May 09 2015 02:38 Nyxisto wrote: I actually think the FPTP system makes quite a lot of sense. If you can't win a single regional majority that says quite a lot about how relevant your party is in real-life politics. Picking up the scraps everywhere shouldn't really be a successful political strategy, after all nobody lives in 'the UK' but in some actual town or region, so if you don't have any relevance in any single one of them why would should you get proportional representation at all?
Except you end up with tactical voting where you vote for someone that you don't like to keep out someone you hate and the tragedy of the Lib-Dems. I like FPTP because it creates strong majorities who can actually govern but it's certainly not fair or democratic.
Liberal SDP alliance got 25.4% of the vote, 23 seats. Labour got 27.6% of the vote, 209 seats. It was tragic.
Strong majorities who can "actually" govern just means you can push things through on an ideological basis that might not have widespread support. It's arguable if that's effective governance. Also, many other countries have systems where every time the main party is required to form alliances and they seem to function fine. Politicians in the UK would just need to adapt.
EPT
