How many of those four million people would have voted UKIP if there was a realistic chance of delivering UKIP MPs to Parliament?
Considerably less in my view - it's easy to make a form of protest vote if you live in a safe Tory or Labour seat.
Why would there have been less? For those 4 million people voting UKIP wasn't a protest. Are we still going on about protest votes, nicking votes from the Tories or Labour,etc? Those 4 million people are UKIP supporters. Which part of that can't you accept?
Those people would have voted UKIP no matter what. There were also a lot of people who were going to vote UKIP but bottled it on the day and voted mostly Tory because they didn't want Ed Miliband as PM.
How many of those four million people would have voted UKIP if there was a realistic chance of delivering UKIP MPs to Parliament?
Considerably less in my view - it's easy to make a form of protest vote if you live in a safe Tory or Labour seat.
Why would there have been less? For those 4 million people voting UKIP wasn't a protest. Are we still going on about protest votes, nicking votes from the Tories or Labour,etc? Those 4 million people are UKIP supporters. Which part of that can't you accept?
Those people would have voted UKIP no matter what. There were also a lot of people who were going to vote UKIP but bottled it on the day and voted mostly Tory because they didn't want Ed Miliband as PM.
I think there is a contradiction here. UKIP voters you say were UKIP voters fair and simple, but you say some Tory voters were UKIP voters. Why aren't Tory voters Tory voters fair and simple too?
IMO. Some of those who voted Conservative and don't think there is a significant restructuring of public institutions and the public realm with very severe cuts coming have not been paying attention (maybe you have and thats what you want). The Conservatives are extremely ideological and do not believe in public provision of any kind. The state is going to shrink to pre 30s levels. All public provision will be outsourced and privatised. This is not likely to bring better services. There will be further rationing. Going forward you will need health insurance for anything then less than critical health care or if using the NHS will have to wait a long time for the procedure.
With further austerity, there will be massive hardship. Those of you with sufficient funds to manage that's great. The country is radically changing and it is threatening to be a far different, more brutal, and crueller place to live.
Those of you who voted Conservative without a lot of money or health insurance. I hope that you and your families remain well and don't come up against hardship. I fear that if you do, it will be too late to realise how little support there will be available for you whatever you have paid in.
Labour lost this election due unprecedented ineptitude. It was there for the taking but they got things so wrong. I would have voted them had they proved themselves ready to govern again from the last time they were in. But they clearly hadn't.
I will not vote blind. I had no confidence in Labour, and listening to some of the aftermath comments from the politicians they still have left,neither were they. Just voting for anyone,because they're not the current lot was never going to wash with the likes of me and many others. Opportunity missed ,which is a real shame.
I am saying there were people who were going to vote UKIP but decided to vote Tory to keep Ed Miliband out of number 10. I didn't say anything about Tory voters not being Tory voters. I suppose because they ended up voting Tory then that makes them Tory voters.
IMO. Some of those who voted Conservative and don't think there is a significant restructuring of public institutions and the public realm with very severe cuts coming have not been paying attention (maybe you have and thats what you want). The Conservatives are extremely ideological and do not believe in public provision of any kind. The state is going to shrink to pre 30s levels. All public provision will be outsourced and privatised. This is not likely to bring better services. There will be further rationing. Going forward you will need health insurance for anything then less than critical health care or if using the NHS will have to wait a long time for the procedure.
With further austerity, there will be massive hardship. Those of you with sufficient funds to manage that's great. The country is radically changing and it is threatening to be a far different, more brutal, and crueller place to live.
Those of you who voted Conservative without a lot of money or health insurance. I hope that you and your families remain well and don't come up against hardship. I fear that if you do, it will be too late to realise how little support there will be available for you whatever you have paid in.
For some people, I used to be one of them conservative are best for them. It's not that they don't care about poor people and disabled people it's just that they don't have any immediate affect on their lives, they therefore have other priorities like how much tax they pay, how their businesses are affected and how much spending money they will have left after everything is paid. For some it's about the state of the economy, they may not have many dealings with public services as much as some people and cuts are not necessarily a problem for them but the future of stocks and shares are. I'm not a conservative symphetic and never will be but there was a time that they were the only party for me, circumstances change so priorities do too.
Well then it's curious that they failed to win all but one of their dozen or so target seats, and couldn't get their leader or Reckless elected/reelected. In other words when it 'mattered' they couldn't get across the line.
Red, my comments were not aimed at you specifically, but rather the general tone of Labour supporters on here, who, having lost, are now questioning the rules of the game. PR is also not a perfect system and has produced a rogue Senate here that until recently was blocking much of the legislation put forward by a lower house that was elected in a landslide! It has virtually hamstrung the Government and been very detrimental to the country IMO. My comment concerning the military was simply that the country needs to pull together and be united no matter who is running the country. Thank you for your service.
Thanks @queensland_addick, I apologise for my comments I was just a little incensed, and I read your comments incorrectly. I was proud to serve and would do so again if called upon. It was interesting to note your comments about PR not being perfect, I actually do agree. However FPTP was made for 2 parties fighting each other, I think (may well be wrong here) it was wigs against libs, in the early days? Nowadays we have so many different 'larger parties' (if you count votes cast) that FPTP doesn't work now. Whichever of the main 2 parties wins they will always be a minority in the country. As you know we do have an un-elected house as well - 'The Lords' - they can also block legislation without being elected, in the main, so I would try and counter that by making both houses work under PR. I'm not sure the transferable vote is the best option, but we must as a country move away from stagnant voting systems, it does not work anymore and hasn't really since the debacle of the Wilson/Heath era.
Well then it's curious that they failed to win all but one of their dozen or so target seats, and couldn't get their leader or Reckless elected/reelected. In other words when it 'mattered' they couldn't get across the line.
What's curious about it? They got around 4 million votes and gained 1 seat. The way the current system operates they could have got 6 or 7 million votes and it wouldn't really have made much difference.
Some of you really need to get some pills for your paranoia.
Oh come on, I'm sure all Labour supporters would be just as critical of the voting system if they'd managed to squeeze past the post yesterday, and still be crying out for PR voting reform today! We didn't hear too many cries about the unfairness of the voting system when the polls were neck and neck did we?
I'm not a Labour supporter. I don't have a problem with the result.
I definitely did share my opinions on FPTP on this thread before the election, and I'm sure @Callumcafc also did so. I'm not a fan of strict PR as I believe it gives too much power to party insiders. I could live with MMP (as per Germany) but I prefer STV with multiseat constituencies (eg Ireland).
My two major problems with FPTP are that a large number of votes (over 50% in most constituencies) are ultimately ignored and the public are discouraged from voting for the candidate they want to win.
How many of those four million people would have voted UKIP if there was a realistic chance of delivering UKIP MPs to Parliament?
Considerably less in my view - it's easy to make a form of protest vote if you live in a safe Tory or Labour seat.
A good point @newyorkaddick, however even under PR UKIP would only have been the 3rd largest party, if everyone who did vote for them did so under PR as well. With Lab, Libs, Greens and SNP all supporting staying in europe that would have been enough (under PR) with a few tories and others to beat UKIP and Euro sceptic Tories in any vote about leaving the EU. I just think it is wrong that 4 million people have voted one way (that I dont agree with at all) but only have 1 voice. Our biggest danger, in my opinion, is the 1.5 million who voted for the SNP and have 56 voices, and may well in the end see the break up of the UK, despite the same amount of Green voters only getting 1 voice who want to keep the Union together.
Well then it's curious that they failed to win all but one of their dozen or so target seats, and couldn't get their leader or Reckless elected/reelected. In other words when it 'mattered' they couldn't get across the line.
What's curious about it? They got around 4 million votes and gained 1 seat. The way the current system operates they could have got 6 or 7 million votes and it wouldn't really have made much difference.
The Lib Dems converted 17-22% of the national vote (more than UKIP admittedly) into ~45-60 seats from 1997-2010 by focusing on niche parts of the country where they could win despite FPTF.
UKIP would have been hard pushed to match that but just one seat?!
Some of you really need to get some pills for your paranoia.
Oh come on, I'm sure all Labour supporters would be just as critical of the voting system if they'd managed to squeeze past the post yesterday, and still be crying out for PR voting reform today! We didn't hear too many cries about the unfairness of the voting system when the polls were neck and neck did we?
I'm not a Labour supporter. I don't have a problem with the result.
I definitely did share my opinions on FPTP on this thread before the election, and I'm sure @Callumcafc also did so. I'm not a fan of strict PR as I believe it gives too much power to party insiders. I could live with MMP (as per Germany) but I prefer STV with multiseat constituencies (eg Ireland).
My two major problems with FPTP are that a large number of votes (over 50% in most constituencies) are ultimately ignored and the public are discouraged from voting for the candidate they want to win.
No-one posted back in February (probably because they thought it was incredibly boring) but voting reform definitely isn't a knee jerk reaction to a Tory majority.
It's simply highlighted it and brought it to the attention of a wider audience.
Well then it's curious that they failed to win all but one of their dozen or so target seats, and couldn't get their leader or Reckless elected/reelected. In other words when it 'mattered' they couldn't get across the line.
What's curious about it? They got around 4 million votes and gained 1 seat. The way the current system operates they could have got 6 or 7 million votes and it wouldn't really have made much difference.
The Lib Dems converted 17-22% of the national vote (more than UKIP admittedly) into ~45-60 seats from 1997-2010 by focusing on niche parts of the country where they could win despite FPTF.
UKIP would have been hard pushed to match that but just one seat?!
Just shows that the system is heavily flawed. UKIP's support is in the vote number, not the seat number.
Most people I've spoken to who planned on voting UKIP leading up the election weren't basing their decision on 'protesting' because they're in a 'safe Labour/Tory seat', they possibly wouldn't even know who their local MP was and don't seem too politically knowledgeable.
I feel that those who have voted UKIP have largely done so because they genuinely want change on immigration/EU matters. And whether you like it or not, they should have a enormously larger representation in parliament than they've come out with.
Well then it's curious that they failed to win all but one of their dozen or so target seats, and couldn't get their leader or Reckless elected/reelected. In other words when it 'mattered' they couldn't get across the line.
What's curious about it? They got around 4 million votes and gained 1 seat. The way the current system operates they could have got 6 or 7 million votes and it wouldn't really have made much difference.
The Lib Dems converted 17-22% of the national vote (more than UKIP admittedly) into ~45-60 seats from 1997-2010 by focusing on niche parts of the country where they could win despite FPTF.
UKIP would have been hard pushed to match that but just one seat?!
Just shows that the system is heavily flawed. UKIP's support is in the vote number, not the seat number.
Most people I've spoken to who planned on voting UKIP leading up the election weren't basing their decision on 'protesting' because they're in a 'safe Labour/Tory seat', they possibly wouldn't even know who their local MP was and don't seem too politically knowledgeable.
I feel that those who have voted UKIP have largely done so because they genuinely want change on immigration/EU matters. And whether you like it or not, they should have a enormously larger representation in parliament than they've come out with.
Someone in UKIP headquarters will know whether they did better than expected in non-target seats and worse than expected in target seats - if so (and my 'back of the envelope' anecdotal conclusion is they did) then it supports my view.
Looked at another way if you told Farage on Thurs morning that they will win nearly four million votes, he would have expected 8-10 seats not 1.
Sorry @RedMidland but the Scottish Greens supported a Yes vote in Scotland last year (ie pro independence).
Thanks @IA I really didn't know that. My understanding is the 'English Greens' (if there is such a thing), wants to stay in EU, however I didn't even know the greens were different is Scotland, apologies from me, however I was talking about the EU not Scottish independence.
Red, my comments were not aimed at you specifically, but rather the general tone of Labour supporters on here, who, having lost, are now questioning the rules of the game. PR is also not a perfect system and has produced a rogue Senate here that until recently was blocking much of the legislation put forward by a lower house that was elected in a landslide! It has virtually hamstrung the Government and been very detrimental to the country IMO. My comment concerning the military was simply that the country needs to pull together and be united no matter who is running the country. Thank you for your service.
Thanks @queensland_addick, I apologise for my comments I was just a little incensed, and I read your comments incorrectly. I was proud to serve and would do so again if called upon. It was interesting to note your comments about PR not being perfect, I actually do agree. However FPTP was made for 2 parties fighting each other, I think (may well be wrong here) it was wigs against libs, in the early days? Nowadays we have so many different 'larger parties' (if you count votes cast) that FPTP doesn't work now. Whichever of the main 2 parties wins they will always be a minority in the country. As you know we do have an un-elected house as well - 'The Lords' - they can also block legislation without being elected, in the main, so I would try and counter that by making both houses work under PR. I'm not sure the transferable vote is the best option, but we must as a country move away from stagnant voting systems, it does not work anymore and hasn't really since the debacle of the Wilson/Heath era.
No need to apologise, I probably could have worded things better! Must off to bed it's 3.30 am here!
Sorry @RedMidland but the Scottish Greens supported a Yes vote in Scotland last year (ie pro independence).
Thanks @IA I really didn't know that. My understanding is the 'English Greens' (if there is such a thing), wants to stay in EU, however I didn't even know the greens were different is Scotland, apologies from me, however I was talking about the EU not Scottish independence.
Sorry I thought you were comparing the SNP to the Greens.
Sorry @RedMidland but the Scottish Greens supported a Yes vote in Scotland last year (ie pro independence).
Thanks @IA I really didn't know that. My understanding is the 'English Greens' (if there is such a thing), wants to stay in EU, however I didn't even know the greens were different is Scotland, apologies from me, however I was talking about the EU not Scottish independence.
Sorry I thought you were comparing the SNP to the Greens.
The SNP are pro-EU too by the way.
Only in term of votes cast - Greens got 1.2 million and 1MP, SNP got 1.5 million and 56 MP's
Well then it's curious that they failed to win all but one of their dozen or so target seats, and couldn't get their leader or Reckless elected/reelected. In other words when it 'mattered' they couldn't get across the line.
What's curious about it? They got around 4 million votes and gained 1 seat. The way the current system operates they could have got 6 or 7 million votes and it wouldn't really have made much difference.
The Lib Dems converted 17-22% of the national vote (more than UKIP admittedly) into ~45-60 seats from 1997-2010 by focusing on niche parts of the country where they could win despite FPTF.
UKIP would have been hard pushed to match that but just one seat?!
Just shows that the system is heavily flawed. UKIP's support is in the vote number, not the seat number.
Most people I've spoken to who planned on voting UKIP leading up the election weren't basing their decision on 'protesting' because they're in a 'safe Labour/Tory seat', they possibly wouldn't even know who their local MP was and don't seem too politically knowledgeable.
I feel that those who have voted UKIP have largely done so because they genuinely want change on immigration/EU matters. And whether you like it or not, they should have a enormously larger representation in parliament than they've come out with.
Someone in UKIP headquarters will know whether they did better than expected in non-target seats and worse than expected in target seats - if so (and my 'back of the envelope' anecdotal conclusion is they did) then it supports my view.
Looked at another way if you told Farage on Thurs morning that they will win nearly four million votes, he would have expected 8-10 seats not 1.
Not necessarily and certainly not with the current voting mechanism. The problem UKIP have (and I suspect that their leadership know this) is that for all of the passionate supporters they have, there is a majority of people who hate them and all they stand for. The hatred is for different reasons, but they are deeply disliked and will never be voted for by these people in their current form.
This was demonstrated in Thanet South. There was a concerted effort from all parties to make sure that Farage didn't get in and extensive campaigns on social media to mobilise the anti UKIP vote. They might carry on coming second in some seats and occasional win, but it will be almost impossible for them to win any significant number of seats.
Under PR, then yes, they would expect more MPs but it is hard to say how voting patterns would change if we had PR in some form.
As is your right. I disagree and there's plenty of evidence on this thread that supports the view that the right are just as vociferous in their attacks on the more left leaning.
I am bit surprised that no-one has mentioned the violent protests in Westminster tonight. Terrible times. It took several months before London started violent protests last time Cameron took charge. It's a few hours this time.
While I support the right to demonstrate, to protest and to take appropriate, proportional action, the graffiti on the WWII Memorial to Women was beyond the pale.
Comments
Those people would have voted UKIP no matter what. There were also a lot of people who were going to vote UKIP but bottled it on the day and voted mostly Tory because they didn't want Ed Miliband as PM.
It was there for the taking but they got things so wrong. I would have voted them had they proved themselves ready to govern again from the last time they were in. But they clearly hadn't.
I will not vote blind. I had no confidence in Labour, and listening to some of the aftermath comments from the politicians they still have left,neither were they.
Just voting for anyone,because they're not the current lot was never going to wash with the likes of me and many others.
Opportunity missed ,which is a real shame.
There is no contradiction there.
I definitely did share my opinions on FPTP on this thread before the election, and I'm sure @Callumcafc also did so. I'm not a fan of strict PR as I believe it gives too much power to party insiders. I could live with MMP (as per Germany) but I prefer STV with multiseat constituencies (eg Ireland).
My two major problems with FPTP are that a large number of votes (over 50% in most constituencies) are ultimately ignored and the public are discouraged from voting for the candidate they want to win.
I just think it is wrong that 4 million people have voted one way (that I dont agree with at all) but only have 1 voice.
Our biggest danger, in my opinion, is the 1.5 million who voted for the SNP and have 56 voices, and may well in the end see the break up of the UK, despite the same amount of Green voters only getting 1 voice who want to keep the Union together.
UKIP would have been hard pushed to match that but just one seat?!
It's simply highlighted it and brought it to the attention of a wider audience.
http://www.charltonlife.com/discussion/66329/the-problems-with-first-past-the-post-voting-explained-by-cgp-grey
Of course the Tories will do nothing about it because it's in their interests to stick with FPTP.
Most people I've spoken to who planned on voting UKIP leading up the election weren't basing their decision on 'protesting' because they're in a 'safe Labour/Tory seat', they possibly wouldn't even know who their local MP was and don't seem too politically knowledgeable.
I feel that those who have voted UKIP have largely done so because they genuinely want change on immigration/EU matters. And whether you like it or not, they should have a enormously larger representation in parliament than they've come out with.
The all or nothing nature of the system works against a majority of voters.
Looked at another way if you told Farage on Thurs morning that they will win nearly four million votes, he would have expected 8-10 seats not 1.
The SNP are pro-EU too by the way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32671424
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32671424
Unfortunately Rick Everett lost his seat.
This was demonstrated in Thanet South. There was a concerted effort from all parties to make sure that Farage didn't get in and extensive campaigns on social media to mobilise the anti UKIP vote. They might carry on coming second in some seats and occasional win, but it will be almost impossible for them to win any significant number of seats.
Under PR, then yes, they would expect more MPs but it is hard to say how voting patterns would change if we had PR in some form.
independent.co.uk/voices/comment/im-a-proud-tory-but-with-the-left-this-belligerent-and-selfrighteous-is-it-any-wonder-that-so-many-of-us-are-shy-10236544.html
While I support the right to demonstrate, to protest and to take appropriate, proportional action, the graffiti on the WWII Memorial to Women was beyond the pale.
But had Labour / SNP had their grip on us - would the suburbs of Surrey and Hampshire all be heading up to London to scrawl filth on war memorials?
Show some bloody respect to the rest of the country (of all political views) who registered their view democratically at the polling stations.
Also - you have probably made the capital smell of stale piss all day looking at the state of half of them.