General Election 2015

If that is true, then the Electoral Reform Society was incredibly short-sighted.

 

It was never taken as a vote for "no to AV". It was interpreted as "we don't want any electoral reform for the next 40 years".

Very tolerant people the Brits, 5m votes for 2 seats! That's indefensible in any language.

Chuck in another 2-3 m who didn't bother voting cos their votes make no difference and the same again who voted 'tactically' ie negatively, all based on polling info which we now know was utter horsec9rap.

Not sure how we get there but I'd be astonished if we still have FPTP in 40 years time.

I think the person asking the question was being a bit rhetorical but it was certainly a very childish response.

 

Lord Duckhunter, doesn't it depend on your definition of right wing? I mean a very militant, nationalistic party that (I don't know how) hates the English more than the SNP could be described as "right-wing" and if one of those got into power...

Completely rhetorical, it was a stupid, unanswerable questio, hence it got a stupid answer.

Very tolerant people the Brits, 5m votes for 2 seats! That's indefensible in any language.

 

Chuck in another 2-3 m who didn't bother voting cos their votes make no difference and the same again who voted 'tactically' ie negatively, all based on polling info which we now know was utter horsec9rap.

 

Not sure how we get there but I'd be astonished if we still have FPTP in 40 years time.

It is a farce, and all other considerations aside, I'd hate to be a UKIP supporter right now. Even during the election they were bigging up their prospects in 2020, because despite the obvious popular appeal, they've very little to show for it.

The AV referendum is a perfect illustration of how any future attempt at reform will go down. First, it'll be a smaller party that proposes the change. Cannot see either of the two self-interested behemoths voting against their own interests. They didn't last time.

The Lib Dems wanted PR, but they were horse-traded down to AV, a step forward for them with second preference votes, but entirely attackable by those with a vested interest in retaining FPTP. "It's not PR!", they shouted. "Look, FPTP isn't ideal, but AV is only a slight upgrade" or more crudely, "soldiers and babies will die if you vote for AV".

In the unlikely event that we get another stab at electoral reform, we'll either not get PR as an option, or won't be able to vote for it in the abstract. They'll give us the choice between the status quo and some problematic specific electoral system which is difficult to gain support for.

Let's not forget that the ASA has no power over referendum advertisements, and certainly let's not forget that neither recent referendum produced the change proposed, and in both cases, fear and intimidation was used to get turkeys to vote for Christmas. Expect all of the same crap when we debate leaving the EU. We'll have companies saying they are leaving the UK, companies saying they won't use the pound, etc, etc. People will get scared and vote for the status quo. Kinda how these things work.

 

But yeah, the EU referendum. If it happens, just expect more of the same. NO voters will be cast as racist scum, or at best, confused about the issues. We'll be convinced to vote no. That'll be 40 more years of the EU.

This is exactly what's going to happen. Harold Wilson pulled the same trick on the British people over 40 years ago. A tinkering around the edges sold as a better deal for Britain and then misrepresented the " out" position. It is how the EUSSR works , ffs they even rerun referendum when people vote the " wrong" way. Maastricht changed the UK's relationship with Europe , yet people who said so were made out to be loons & racists.

The problem four the outers now is there's no Tony Benn, no Bob Crow to argue from the left. The thing will be framed around the loony right against the mainstream .

The whole thing will be a smoke & mirrors act. A bit of benefit changes dressed up as immigration controls and a few straw men knocked down. Whilst we move on towards " ever closer union" .

Completely rhetorical, it was a stupid, unanswerable questio, hence it got a stupid answer.

The problem is that it wasn't particularly professional now was it?

Why answer a question like that in such a goading manner?.....keeping it civil would have been the best course of action and not come off as a stereotype.

This is exactly what's going to happen. Harold Wilson pulled the same trick on the British people over 40 years ago. A tinkering around the edges sold as a better deal for Britain and then misrepresented the " out" position. It is how the EUSSR works , ffs they even rerun referendum when people vote the " wrong" way. Maastricht changed the UK's relationship with Europe , yet people who said so were made out to be loons & racists.

 

 

The problem four the outers now is there's no Tony Benn, no Bob Crow to argue from the left. The thing will be framed around the loony right against the mainstream .

 

The whole thing will be a smoke & mirrors act. A bit of benefit changes dressed up as immigration controls and a few straw men knocked down. Whilst we move on towards " ever closer union" .

Who signed the Maastrict treaty Lord Duckhunter?

So essentially the tories will be wrestling with an issue of their own creation.

The problem is that it wasn't particularly professional now was it?

 

Why answer a question like that in such a goading manner?.....keeping it civil would have been the best course of action and not come off as a stereotype.

Only people like you are going to care about a flippant comment on Twitter.

The problem is that it wasn't particularly professional now was it?

 

Why answer a question like that in such a goading manner?.....keeping it civil would have been the best course of action and not come off as a stereotype.

You're looking for an issue where it isn't I'm afraid.

The Tories are accused of being too London focussed and out of touch with Scotland and the regions. Cameron then promises to govern for the whole country. One of his first steps is to invite the Mayor of London to cabinet meetings. Not lots of Mayors, just London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32658697

The Tories are accused of being too London focussed and out of touch with Scotland and the regions. Cameron then promises to govern for the whole country. One of his first steps is to invite the Mayor of London to cabinet meetings. Not lots of Mayors, just London.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32658697

It's obvious why. Jesus

It's obvious why. Jesus

So that makes it alright? Maybe if someone was ****ging Sam Cam and blackmailing Dave they should be invited too?

The Tories are accused of being too London focussed and out of touch with Scotland and the regions. Cameron then promises to govern for the whole country. One of his first steps is to invite the Mayor of London to cabinet meetings. Not lots of Mayors, just London.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32658697

Are there any other mayors that are also in parliament?

Who signed the Maastrict treaty Lord Duckhunter?

 

So essentially the tories will be wrestling with an issue of their own creation.

This isn't a Tory or labour issue. Whether its Lisbon or Maastricht the establishment have signed away parts of our sovereignty.

Are there any other mayors that are also in parliament?

Not that I know of, most people recognise you cant do two jobs simultaneously and not short change somebody. Add in £250,000pa from the Telegraph and you can make it three.

Very tolerant people the Brits, 5m votes for 2 seats! That's indefensible in any language.

 

Chuck in another 2-3 m who didn't bother voting cos their votes make no difference and the same again who voted 'tactically' ie negatively, all based on polling info which we now know was utter horsec9rap.

 

Not sure how we get there but I'd be astonished if we still have FPTP in 40 years time.

Trouble is, with PR, we'd have even more hung parliaments and coalitions, that said it has sort of worked for the the Germans who always have coalitions governments.

With FPTP people vote tactically which is why you get such distorted figures. I would be surprised if, come a PR election, UKIP got the same share of the vote as they did now.

STV/AV is a complete no for me, I want who I voted for to come into power, hot my 5th or even 6th choice.

Come PR people would ask "Who would you local MP be?", but do any of the current "local" MPs actually do a lot for their local constituents?

Not that I know of, most people recognise you cant do two jobs simultaneously and not short change somebody. Add in £250,000pa from the Telegraph and you can make it three.

Which is why he is not being given a cabinet position but is simply being asked to join in the 'political cabinet' meetings. This is not the full cabinet, probably just some sort of political strategy meetings. He has specifically not been given a formal post because he has a year still to run as Mayor.

Come on Tim, try and keep up.

Trouble is, with PR, we'd have even more hung parliaments and coalitions, that said it has sort of worked for the the Germans who always have coalitions governments.

 

With FPTP people vote tactically which is why you get such distorted figures. I would be surprised if, come a PR election, UKIP got the same share of the vote as they did now.

 

STV/AV is a complete no for me, I want who I voted for to come into power, hot my 5th or even 6th choice.

 

Come PR people would ask "Who would you local MP be?", but do any of the current "local" MPs actually do a lot for their local constituents?

Is there anything wrong with coalitions? The fact that the Lib Dems stopped the Tories going to extremes seemed to work OK last time. If Parliament better reflects the will of the people then surely it is stronger.

Also with the current system we have constant swings from right to left which cannot be a good thing, especially when constant change (for the NHS, education etc) tends to cost money.

PR is a no brainer for me, the problem is turkeys will never vote for Christmas

Trouble is, with PR, we'd have even more hung parliaments and coalitions, that said it has sort of worked for the the Germans who always have coalitions governments.

 

With FPTP people vote tactically which is why you get such distorted figures. I would be surprised if, come a PR election, UKIP got the same share of the vote as they did now.

 

STV/AV is a complete no for me, I want who I voted for to come into power, hot my 5th or even 6th choice.

 

Come PR people would ask "Who would you local MP be?", but do any of the current "local" MPs actually do a lot for their local constituents?

You are not forced to make a 5th or a 6th or even a 2nd choice!

Who the **** do you think you're talking to with this "the Left" cliched nonsense? I've had more than twenty years of running a small business, with all the excitement and drudgery (VAT returns, company accounts, paying more corporation tax than multinationals named after great rain forests, etc) that goes with it. I've also over the years voted Tory, Lib Dem and Labour. What you don't understand, evidently, is that small business is a small player in terms of political power, and certainly does not dominate the economic landscape either.

 

Like all small businesses, I've also had the benefits of that as well as the costs - and that certainly includes paying less tax than if I had been a PAYE employee all these years. Any small business owner who denies that is a liar. The costs have included no safety net - no recourse to unemployment benefit when contracts run out (there's no such thing as unemployment because you're always developing the next thing).

 

No small business I know has the resources to hire political consultants and lobbyists, to negotiate multibillion pound contracts that seem not to contain anything like adequate performance milestones, to have the power just to walk away from government contracts when they feel like it, to not suffer any kind of realistic sanction when they utterly fail (and demand even more money to exit from the failure), to engage in borderline-legal bribery (with donations and inducements) and influence-peddling to win contracts, to slash employees' pay and leverage up executives' pay on taking over public sector contracts, and so on and on.

 

At the top of the tree of national cronies are the banks, of course - too big to fail, too wrapped up in our economic system to allow politicians to do anything other than bung billions of pounds at them when they inevitably overreach.

 

And that's before we even start with the overwhelming power of the multinationals. One of the worst consequences of a Brexit is that the UK will be even more at the mercy of the multinationals without the collective bargaining and policing power of the EU. Not that the EU is an angel. You may (or may not) have heard of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), something on which the EU and Cameron are at one. It will give American multinationals in particular huge leverage to snap up contracts in the NHS, UK energy, cars, finance, food and drink - all economic activities dominated by corporate behemoths. One of the nastiest aspects of this is that these huge American companies will acquire the power to sue governments when things, in their view, go wrong. So a democratically taken decision, for example, to exclude an American multinational health insurer or medical supplier from NHS bidding will result in endless lawsuits.

 

And with all this, you're bleating about how you 'hate' big business? You've just voted for the party that, more than any other, will railroad big business into ever greater positions of power.

Not sure the opening line was called for.

You can dislike big business but still understand its value to the national economy. The strength of small business's is how many there are and their power at the ballot box. There are over 5m of them - upset them and that is a lot votes.

Part of Labour's downfall was their resentment and lack of understanding of business in general. It is reputed (but quite possibly Tory propaganda) that Milliband went to the FT to seek in endorsement. The FT is quite pink politically as well as on paper and based on the Europe referendum it was not out of the question that they would back him. That was until Milliband asked why companies have to pay shareholders.

Until Labour become business friendly again they will not be electable. The Tories will change the electoral boundaries which will cancel out their historical Northern bonus, while the Scots will vote tribally until they are given the chance to discover the shortfall in the budget. If they lose the next election that will mean that in 2025 they will not have won an election for twenty years.

In reality of course they will win again and a good job too. Stability is great but governments need freshening up every few years and the electorate will allow them to shift back to the centre ground and vote them in possibly sooner than you would think.

Very tolerant people the Brits, 5m votes for 2 seats! That's indefensible in any language.

 

Chuck in another 2-3 m who didn't bother voting cos their votes make no difference and the same again who voted 'tactically' ie negatively, all based on polling info which we now know was utter horsec9rap.

 

Not sure how we get there but I'd be astonished if we still have FPTP in 40 years time.

I'm sure we won't. FPTP is losing legitimacy at a rate of knots, and will continue to do so.

The problem is that FPTP sort of worked when we had a two-party system. Now we clearly don't. And the less we have a two-party system the bigger is the difference between votes and seats. If we stick with FPTP in a multi-party system it will continue to produce perverse results. And that in turn will create a crisis of legitimacy - voters will cease to believe in the outcomes it produces.

I'm sure we won't. FPTP is losing legitimacy at a rate of knots, and will continue to do so.

 

The problem is that FPTP sort of worked when we had a two-party system. Now we clearly don't. And the less we have a two-party system the bigger is the difference between votes and seats. If we stick with FPTP in a multi-party system it will continue to produce perverse results. And that in turn will create a crisis of legitimacy - voters will cease to believe in the outcomes it produces.

The problem is that the only time these aberrations are going to occur and be visible enough for people to moan is at General Elections. There's no way that the Tories, having benefited from its flaws, are going to propose changing it. There is no coalition partner making demands.

The only other regular FPTP votes we get are the local elections. And going by turnout, who cares?

The problem is that the only time these aberrations are going to occur and be visible enough for people to moan is at General Elections. There's no way that the Tories, having benefited from its flaws, are going to propose changing it. There is no coalition partner making demands.

 

The only other regular FPTP votes we get are the local elections. And going by turnout, who cares?

Alternatively Labour, should it feel its support base is still too narrow and it has little chance of getting back into office in 2020, makes a referendum on PR part of its next manifesto, thereby appealing to kippers, lib dems and greens. Quite apart from principle, guess it depends how much Labour discounts the future for more immediate political gain.

Alternatively Labour, should it feel its support base is still too narrow and it has little chance of getting back into office in 2020, makes a referendum on PR part of its next manifesto, thereby appealing to kippers, lib dems and greens. Quite apart from principle, guess it depends how much Labour discounts the future for more immediate political gain.

I wonder whether that really is a vote winner? I mean, I can't see how many kippers would vote Labour on the basis of a promised vote on electoral reform?

I wonder how many people genuinely see it as a priority or actually even care about it all that much. My Mum works at the polling stations for most elections, think this was her 4th General Election, and she says every time without fail the thing they get asked the most is why can't they vote for David Cameron/Milliband etc. As much as there is talk about how a change in system would be too confusing and people wouldn't understand, there is a not insignificant amount of the population that don't understand the current system.

Alternatively Labour, should it feel its support base is still too narrow and it has little chance of getting back into office in 2020, makes a referendum on PR part of its next manifesto, thereby appealing to kippers, lib dems and greens. Quite apart from principle, guess it depends how much Labour discounts the future for more immediate political gain.

That is an interesting shout, although I do wonder why they can't just make the legislation itself an election pledge, rather than a referendum. I do think Labour shot themselves in the foot by largely standing against AV, and thus killing the electoral reform agenda. Sure, it works for them in that if they have a party attractive enough to Middle England, they can flip the balance of power by concentrating on a percentage of seats, but a depressing consequence of that is that parties tend up pandering to floating voters.

I get the feeling that under a PR system, Labour is always going to have a chance of being a majority party in a coalition. Under FPTP, it has a good chance of three Parliaments in a row, but just as much chance as being locked out of power for a generation.

Parties have to learn to compromise, and one of the problems with the left, to use the term in the abstract, is that there is too much internecine conflict over matters of relatively little import, when fundamentally, people are agreed on the big stuff.

Most true lefties did the offs from Labour ages ago, to what end I don't really know. Personally, I know that the party I support has no electoral prospects thanks to FPTP, but take comfort from the fact that I can stand behind the policies we passed. I'd sooner have that than join up for the big left of centre Labour ride (as some would term it) and not like where it's going.

If they committed to electoral reform in their manifesto though, Labour would get my vote.

 

Come PR people would ask "Who would you local MP be?", but do any of the current "local" MPs actually do a lot for their local constituents?

One system uses larger constituencies, each electing 1 or 2 'local' MPs on a transferable votes basis, and then padding out the overall voting proportions in Parliament from national party lists.

I wonder whether that really is a vote winner? I mean, I can't see how many kippers would vote Labour on the basis of a promised vote on electoral reform?

 

I wonder how many people genuinely see it as a priority or actually even care about it all that much. My Mum works at the polling stations for most elections, think this was her 4th General Election, and she says every time without fail the thing they get asked the most is why can't they vote for David Cameron/Milliband etc. As much as there is talk about how a change in system would be too confusing and people wouldn't understand, there is a not insignificant amount of the population that don't understand the current system.

Very true. I think most of them post on here.

One system uses larger constituencies, each electing 1 or 2 'local' MPs on a transferable votes basis, and then padding out the overall voting proportions in Parliament from national party lists.

I like the idea of larger constituencies with more candidates to get a proportional result.

Local accountability is important, but I do wonder how vociferously an MP is going to champion your case if he or she has voted in favour of the proposal giving you grief.

The likelihood of something like STV is that you'd probably have Labour and Tory MPs up and down the country, serving both rural and urban areas. That really isn't a bad thing.

Very true. I think most of them post on here.

I don't mean to sound glib about that point at all. That was a big part of the rhetoric for the No to AV campaign, and imo it was overplayed. It appears, at least in a very anecdotal fashion, that many people don't understand the current system, so an appeal to tradition (i.e conserving the current system) strikes me a bit silly.

Dunno, just a thought. I may well be way off the mark, but I don't think that in itself is a reason to not seriously look at more PR based systems. Also the ideas of coalitions causing chaos is daft.

I like the idea of larger constituencies with more candidates to get a proportional result.

 

Local accountability is important, but I do wonder how vociferously an MP is going to champion your case if he or she has voted in favour of the proposal giving you grief.

 

The likelihood of something like STV is that you'd probably have Labour and Tory MPs up and down the country, serving both rural and urban areas. That really isn't a bad thing.

There are definitely some exceptions, who are very good champion for their local area. But in any safe seat the MP can be largely anonymous. If you know you are getting back in next time round, you really don't need to worry that much.

Also, any 'name' politicians barely ever visit their constituency let alone fight for them. Boris has just got in in my old area, Ruislip, between being Mayor and jostling to be heir-apparent to Cameron there is no way in hell he will be doing anything for the local area. Can't imagine Galloway did much in Bradford, likewise my dear old Nanna didn't even realise Ed Milliband was her MP (though that may be more her than him in fairness. She's getting on a bit, bless her.)

The problem is that the only time these aberrations are going to occur and be visible enough for people to moan is at General Elections. There's no way that the Tories, having benefited from its flaws, are going to propose changing it. There is no coalition partner making demands.

 

The only other regular FPTP votes we get are the local elections. And going by turnout, who cares?

FPTP does work but not in the way that its opponents would like. Instead of the minorities being represented in proportion at every election the system works somewhat stochastically in the sense that 5% of the time a party with 5% of the vote will have some influence, much like the way the LibDems have had their go over the last five years. As in horseracing a 100:1 bet will come up once in a long while.

At local elections I cast my vote but I gave up for the Eueopean ones when I could no longer vote for a person.

I don't mean to sound glib about that point at all. That was a big part of the rhetoric for the No to AV campaign, and imo it was overplayed. It appears, at least in a very anecdotal fashion, that many people don't understand the current system, so an appeal to tradition (i.e conserving the current system) strikes me a bit silly.

 

Dunno, just a thought. I may well be way off the mark, but I don't think that in itself is a reason to not seriously look at more PR based systems. Also the ideas of coalitions causing chaos is daft.

The case for electoral reform has got to be more compelling. Oddly enough, this election may allow that case to be made a lot more credibly. We've seen little from the Conservative majority government thus far, but their agenda of cuts will soon kick in, and we'll probably have two or three years of manufactured austerity before they turn the taps back on in 2018.

This is one of the least proportional results in history, so it'll be the perfect combination of a party with an anomalous mandate making unpopular decisions. The situation up in Scotland is also a pretty outrageous FPTP outcome.

The issue has the potential to rear its head over and over during the coming Parliament. I hope shurlock is right and Labour grasp the nettle. I personally can't see it, because FPTP suits them so well, and they lost their democratic high and mighty values quicksmart during the AV campaign.

I hope shurlock is right and Labour grasp the nettle. I personally can't see it, because FPTP suits them so well, and they lost their democratic high and mighty values quicksmart during the AV campaign.

Once the Government have implemented the boundary changes, Labour will be more in favour of PR.

The case for electoral reform has got to be more compelling. Oddly enough, this election may allow that case to be made a lot more credibly. We've seen little from the Conservative majority government thus far, but their agenda of cuts will soon kick in, and we'll probably have two or three years of manufactured austerity before they turn the taps back on in 2018.

 

This is one of the least proportional results in history, so it'll be the perfect combination of a party with an anomalous mandate making unpopular decisions. The situation up in Scotland is also a pretty outrageous FPTP outcome.

 

The issue has the potential to rear its head over and over during the coming Parliament. I hope shurlock is right and Labour grasp the nettle. I personally can't see it, because FPTP suits them so well, and they lost their democratic high and mighty values quicksmart during the AV campaign.

I agree. As I said above, I just don't really see it as being a big enough vote winner for them to really consider as they have benefitted from it before and they can still benefit from it again in the future.

Labour have much bigger worries I think.

I wonder whether that really is a vote winner? I mean, I can't see how many kippers would vote Labour on the basis of a promised vote on electoral reform?

 

I wonder how many people genuinely see it as a priority or actually even care about it all that much. My Mum works at the polling stations for most elections, think this was her 4th General Election, and she says every time without fail the thing they get asked the most is why can't they vote for David Cameron/Milliband etc. As much as there is talk about how a change in system would be too confusing and people wouldn't understand, there is a not insignificant amount of the population that don't understand the current system.

Agree, though do think this election was different in the sense that all sides were calling out the unfairness of the voting system, not just a few 'lefties'.

Would UKIP voters go labour? Depends how much PR remains an issue once the election dust has settled; whether UKIP manages to build on its success or sees its wings clipped by the EU referendum; to what extent voters think with their heads -as opposed to their hearts (the disconnect between popular vote and seats isn't going to disappear anytime soon); and how far, among other things, Labour itself shifts on the immigration debate and makes itself electable in its own right, bearing in mind many kippers are previous Labour voters.

One perennial strength of PR is that it is easy to sell and explain - it as, if not more intuitive than FTTP; but perhaps I would say that as someone who sees the voting system -and the proverbial rules of the game- as the main driver of how more bread and butter issues get decided.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/11/alan-sugar-resigns-from-labour-party-over-shift-to-left

To me, his timing seems a bit odd, since they've just lost "red Ed" and now are essentially re-evaluating a move to the centre ground.

Also, Labour moving towards the left? Who'd have thunk it? I honestly don't know why Lord Sugar didn't support the tories from the beginning like Karen Brady.

That is an interesting shout, although I do wonder why they can't just make the legislation itself an election pledge, rather than a referendum. I do think Labour shot themselves in the foot by largely standing against AV, and thus killing the electoral reform agenda. Sure, it works for them in that if they have a party attractive enough to Middle England, they can flip the balance of power by concentrating on a percentage of seats, but a depressing consequence of that is that parties tend up pandering to floating voters.

 

I get the feeling that under a PR system, Labour is always going to have a chance of being a majority party in a coalition. Under FPTP, it has a good chance of three Parliaments in a row, but just as much chance as being locked out of power for a generation.

 

Parties have to learn to compromise, and one of the problems with the left, to use the term in the abstract, is that there is too much internecine conflict over matters of relatively little import, when fundamentally, people are agreed on the big stuff.

 

Most true lefties did the offs from Labour ages ago, to what end I don't really know. Personally, I know that the party I support has no electoral prospects thanks to FPTP, but take comfort from the fact that I can stand behind the policies we passed. I'd sooner have that than join up for the big left of centre Labour ride (as some would term it) and not like where it's going.

 

If they committed to electoral reform in their manifesto though, Labour would get my vote.

Agree- Labour shot itself massively in the foot. Perhaps it's just a transitory phenomenon and I'm overfitting the data from one result; but the electoral maths appears to be less and less forgiving for Labour if traditional voters in Scotland and swing voters in the South of England start to pull in very different directions.

Perhaps Labour is counting on those who voted green or lib dem to 'come home' as the only party capable of stoping the tories-in the same way it tried (and failed) with prospective SNP voters. That's what the logic and dynamics of FTTP would predict; but in the real world, it's a presumptuous position and probably why labour finds itself in such a mess.

It does make me laugh that so many commentators are saying how awful labour have been and how this was always going to be the case. No one said a word before or during the campaign and the consensus was they were doing better than expected.

It does make me laugh that so many commentators are saying how awful labour have been and how this was always going to be the case. No one said a word before or during the campaign and the consensus was they were doing better than expected.

it was all about how bad Cameron was doing.

but looking back "hell yes, I am tough, hell yes".....jesus

It does make me laugh that so many commentators are saying how awful labour have been and how this was always going to be the case. No one said a word before or during the campaign and the consensus was they were doing better than expected.

Do you remember the tories doing something similar at the turn of the century? lurching in every direction of right with Hauge and then Howard....I suppose it's swings and round abouts although with this new boundary issue, those in power now will make sure this does re-occur.

It does make me laugh that so many commentators are saying how awful labour have been and how this was always going to be the case. No one said a word before or during the campaign and the consensus was they were doing better than expected.

Some no doubt have egg on their face; but why would people express private misgivings before or during a campaign? There's no bigger vote-killer than watching a divided party at odds with itself, especially when even the smallest differences get pounced upon by the opposition. Didnt think you were so naive.

Crikey! this didn't take long! http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2015-05-11/portsmouth-councillor-defects-from-ukip-to-tories/

(seriously though, surely there has to be some rules about this? as he was elected on a UKIP ticket?).

Agree, though do think this election was different in the sense that all sides were calling out the unfairness of the voting system, not just a few 'lefties'.

 

Would UKIP voters go labour? Depends how much PR remains an issue once the election dust has settled; whether UKIP manages to build on its success or sees its wings clipped by the EU referendum; to what extent voters think with their heads -as opposed to their hearts (the disconnect between popular vote and seats isn't going to disappear anytime soon); and how far, among other things, Labour itself shifts on the immigration debate and makes itself electable in its own right, bearing in mind many kippers are previous Labour voters.

 

One perennial strength of PR is that it is easy to sell and explain - it as, if not more intuitive than FTTP; but perhaps I would say that as someone who sees the voting system -and the proverbial rules of the game- as the main driver of how more bread and butter issues get decided.

Agree with all your post, but this bit in particular I find interesting.

I'm not denying that there are UKIP voters that were formerly Tory (not saying I understand that, but that's a different matter altogether). I just can't see how big a carrot Electoral Reform will serve as to UKIP voters for Labour. Immigration is always going to be a bigger issue for UKIP, I'm still not entirely convinced a great deal of UKIP support is truly built on much else aside from immigration/EU.

This is what I was getting at before, in saying Labour have bigger problems to worry about. It's fairly well documented that they are losing votes to both sides. Simultaneously appealing to, and gaining votes back from, both is a big ask.

Some no doubt have egg on their face; but why would people express private misgivings before or during a campaign? There's no bigger vote-killer than watching a divided party at odds with itself, especially when even the smallest differences get pounced upon by the opposition. Didnt think you were so naive.

What are you talking about? I was chiefly referring to the likes of news reporters who are now confidently telling us how labour were always doomed to fail. Alistair Campbell was on question time on Friday saying how it was always going to be like this yet the week before he was saying how perfectly labour had played it and how much more superior they have been. Commentators aren't solely those affiliated to a political party wheb you could argue that they had a vested interest in the result. Let's not pretend though that everyone knew this would happen. The reality is that no one predicted this so for anyone to pretend that they knew that labour were doomed to failure is clearly not telling the truth.

Reports seem to be suggesting Farage will stay on as UKIP leader. No great surprise there.

What are you talking about? I was chiefly referring to the likes of news reporters who are now confidently telling us how labour were always doomed to fail. Alistair Campbell was on question time on Friday saying how it was always going to be like this yet the week before he was saying how perfectly labour had played it and how much more superior they have been. Commentators aren't solely those affiliated to a political party wheb you could argue that they had a vested interest in the result. Let's not pretend though that everyone knew this would happen. The reality is that no one predicted this so for anyone to pretend that they knew that labour were doomed to failure is clearly not telling the truth.

The vast majority of commentators who are turning around and 'saying how awful labour has been' are on the left. Your example of Alistair Campbell, the former Blairite, proves my point. I know a few personally and yes some definitely misjudged the mood of the electorate but are too self-obsessed to put their hands up and admit it; but there are plenty who spoke a good game in public despite private misgivings; because to do anything else would have been seen as disloyal and would have handed the initiative to the opposition. It's politics 101. Every party does it. Not sure why you're so surprised.

The vast majority of commentators who are turning around and 'saying how awful labour has been' are on the left. Your example of Alistair Campbell, the former Blairite, proves my point. I know a few personally and yes some definitely misjudged the mood of the electorate but are too self-obsessed to put their hands up and admit it; but there are plenty who spoke a good game in public despite private misgivings; because to do anything else would have been seen as disloyal and would have handed the initiative to the opposition. It's politics 101. Every party does it. Not sure why you're so surprised.

I found hypo's surprise amusing too. When has a Party ever gone into an election with its followers saying "don't vote for us. we think it's all shít"?

Last year about the time of the Scottish referendum I watched an interview on Breakfast Television with the head of I think the You Gov poll company, explaining how the result of the opinion poll was formed. Not as I thought say 1000 people canvassed and the results published that was too easy. His explanation along the lines, "If we find the result isn't as expected we factor the result to give the result we think it should be" I found out yesterday he was married to Labour Baroness Ashton, ex EU Foreign Office Commissioner which possibly shows an allegiance.

Small wonder the polls are a surprise if they aren't true samples. It was his poll that indicated 51/49 for the SNP that caused the panic race to Scotland by the leaders and panic promises. In the end 10% difference the other way. Same with this election. The poll that used the Local government results since 2010 was much more accurate showing Conservatives leading by about 10% from Labour before the election but disregarded.

The exit polls were unfactored.

I found hypo's surprise amusing too. When has a Party ever gone into an election with its followers saying "don't vote for us. we think it's all shít"?

Except I wasn't talking about those affiliated to labour...

Except I wasn't talking about those affiliated to labour...

You specifically mentioned Alistair Campbell. The guy is the definition of tribal politics.

I found hypo's surprise amusing too. When has a Party ever gone into an election with its followers saying "don't vote for us. we think it's all shít"?