Remember to VOTE

[Guest]

around 66% turnout, highest since blair won.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html

[unclebulgaria67]

around 66% turnout, highest since blair won.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html

 

And the Tories got a small majority, with only just over one third of the votes. UKIP get 3.5 million votes and just 1 MP.

 

First past the post is an unfair system, only favouring Labour or Tories. The Tories won because they spent about 3 times more than their opponents and they also had most of the print media backing them. Labour with Ed Miliband really did not stand much of a chance, whatever the polls were saying.

[Guest]

good to see a highish turnout, though not good to see 33% not bothering. as VE remembers those who fought for such an option. maybe it shld be compulsory, as elsewhere mentioned in the link.

what shld be the alternative, AV or PR or..?

[citizenB]

And the Tories got a small majority, with only just over one third of the votes. UKIP get 3.5 million votes and just 1 MP.

 

First past the post is an unfair system, only favouring Labour or Tories. The Tories won because they spent about 3 times more than their opponents and they also had most of the print media backing them. Labour with Ed Miliband really did not stand much of a chance, whatever the polls were saying.

 

Do you really believe that the voter is so gullible as to be swayed by the media ?

 

My impression of the BBC reporting was that they were very anti Cameron/Tory and were attempting to persuade voters to make a different choice.

[Guest]

how is the scots situ going to work now? they rejected re the ref, but they have seats down below but with their own beyond the wall. what is the tory position re this?

[antone]

how is the scots situ going to work now? they rejected re the ref, but they have seats down below but with their own beyond the wall. what is the tory position re this?

 

Well, the SNP was quite clear in the campaign that voting for them was not a vote for independence or another referendum. The main thing that might change that would be a vote to leave the EU in 2017, at least if Scotland voted to remain but England voted to go.

 

So as it stands, the Tory position is that the further devolution promised to Scotland is to be delivered, and that this will also involve some sort of UK-wide constitutional settlement to address the West Lothian Question. If there are specific proposals relating to either of those things I'm not yet aware of them. Trying to remain neutral (I'm not exactly a fan of the Tories) I think this will be tricky for Cameron to deal with. It's hard to see a solution that will keep everyone happy.

[citizenB]

How will the Scottish Parliament work ? It is still part of the UK, but with the almost total conversion to SNP, it is a "one party state". Where are the checks and balances that would come from an opposition party ?

[Mike_hawk]

Do you really believe that the voter is so gullible as to be swayed by the media ? .

 

My mum is

[maroondevo52]

I forgot !!!

[antone]

How will the Scottish Parliament work ? It is still part of the UK, but with the almost total conversion to SNP, it is a "one party state". Where are the checks and balances that would come from an opposition party ?

 

At the moment, the SNP does actually have a majority at Holyrood. That's surprising and I don't know how long we can expect it to continue, since the system there was pretty much designed to make absolute majorities very difficult to obtain. Indeed, the SNP administration elected in 2011 was the first - the previous governments had been Lab/Lib coalitions and in one case an SNP minority admin.

 

It's also worth noting that the SNP's clean sweep in the Westminster elections was very much a product of the FPTP system used there. Holyrood elections use a different system, and the current composition of Holyrood is not quite as one-sided: currently there are 64 SNP, 38 Labour, 15 Tories, 5 Lib Dems, 2 Greens and 3 Independents to give an SNP majority of one seat. The next Holyrood election will take place next year - I'm not sure I'd even like to take a guess at what will happen.

[determindator]

sorry determindator, I am just a friendly dragon and get on with most people.

I was once told I was too friendly and lost my job over it :o

 

Lol= lots of love, laugh out loud,live on longer, lager on lime!

 

Also can = Lots of lies:razz:

[determindator]

As the next generation see there is another way, as Sabresheep has mentioned about the Greens, the bloated slowness of the current system will gradually fade away.

 

There's the unfairness of the wealth needed to get a candidate in every constituency. The cons have this wealth. The voting system set up for those who can afford it. Anyway, if it all gets too nasty for people you could see another early election.

[unclebulgaria67]

Or a civil war!

[Consumer dude]

I sense a summer of trouble..

[snowdragon]

I hate lies termi x

[unclebulgaria67]

I hate lies termi x

 

Not sure what you mean by this. There are different ways to deal with economic issues facing the country. The Greens are on a different planet. But Labour were only planning to do roughly what the Tories were planning which is probably why they did not win. The did not offer a left wing alternative, even if the media made claims that Ed was a Marxist. Therefore they did not encourage some to bother to vote.

 

SNP were only planning a small increase in spending and they can probably manage this in Scotland, due to the settlement they receive which means spending per head is more than other parts of the UK.

[snowdragon]

sorry Uncle I was commenting on Detemindators post re LOL saying lots of lies

[Guest]

At the moment, the SNP does actually have a majority at Holyrood. That's surprising and I don't know how long we can expect it to continue, since the system there was pretty much designed to make absolute majorities very difficult to obtain. Indeed, the SNP administration elected in 2011 was the first - the previous governments had been Lab/Lib coalitions and in one case an SNP minority admin.

 

It's also worth noting that the SNP's clean sweep in the Westminster elections was very much a product of the FPTP system used there. Holyrood elections use a different system, and the current composition of Holyrood is not quite as one-sided: currently there are 64 SNP, 38 Labour, 15 Tories, 5 Lib Dems, 2 Greens and 3 Independents to give an SNP majority of one seat. The next Holyrood election will take place next year - I'm not sure I'd even like to take a guess at what will happen.

 

still not sure whats what re the scots P! wasnt there an issue re the ref that things wld change re their influence down below cf. westmin (non) influence up there? or was that a misnomer

[determindator]

I hate lies termi x

 

You're persistent i'll give you that. You've gone from Determindator, to Termi then back to Determindator

 

What's next:madgrin:

[snowdragon]

well are you male or female! haha I am sorry if I offend anyone

[Guest]

.....

 

What's next:madgrin:

 

the terminator. lol

[snowdragon]

I just breath my fire everywhere!

[antone]

still not sure whats what re the scots P! wasnt there an issue re the ref that things wld change re their influence down below cf. westmin (non) influence up there? or was that a misnomer

 

When it looked like there was a (slight) chance that the Scots might actually vote "Yes" in the referendum, the main Unionist parties promised...well, something. They were a bit vague on what that "something" would be but it seemed clear that further devolved powers were to be offered to Scotland in the event of a "No" vote, and that's why the Smith Commission was formed. They did this because it was clear that even although a "no" vote was the most likely outcome, a lot of people in Scotland were unhappy with the status quo despite not being prepared to vote for full independence.

 

Of course, this raised (or perhaps "re-raised") an old question which has been known as the "West Lothian Question" since Tam Dalyell first brought it up in opposition to devolution in the 1970s: how can it be just that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on matters solely relating to England, while English MPs cannot vote on matters that are devolved to Scotland? Does this not create an unfair situation? So Cameron basically said that any further settlement for Scotland would be contingent on a satisfactory resolution of the WLQ.

 

This in itself causes a few problems. First off, Scots are not in general opposed to resolving the WLQ, but there isn't actually any need to link the two issues, and many Scots saw Cameron's doing so as an attempt to renege on a promise he'd made barely 48 hours earlier. It's obvious why: ask any two English people how they'd like to see the problem resolved and you'll get three different answers - are we to accept indefinite delay while England attempts to herd cats in a bid to reach agreement on its own governance? Indeed, how much of the political noise we're hearing represents a genuine dissatisfaction with England's constitutional situation and how much of it is simply bellyaching about the uppity Scots, who were largely ignored as long as their silence and acquiescence to neoliberalism were assured? If it's just the money aspect, no-one in Scotland is married to the Barnett Formula.

 

I don't envy Cameron this one.

[unclebulgaria67]

When it looked like there was a (slight) chance that the Scots might actually vote "Yes" in the referendum, the main Unionist parties promised...well, something. They were a bit vague on what that "something" would be but it seemed clear that further devolved powers were to be offered to Scotland in the event of a "No" vote, and that's why the Smith Commission was formed. They did this because it was clear that even although a "no" vote was the most likely outcome, a lot of people in Scotland were unhappy with the status quo despite not being prepared to vote for full independence.

 

Of course, this raised (or perhaps "re-raised") an old question which has been known as the "West Lothian Question" since Tam Dalyell first brought it up in opposition to devolution in the 1970s: how can it be just that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on matters solely relating to England, while English MPs cannot vote on matters that are devolved to Scotland? Does this not create an unfair situation? So Cameron basically said that any further settlement for Scotland would be contingent on a satisfactory resolution of the WLQ.

 

This in itself causes a few problems. First off, Scots are not in general opposed to resolving the WLQ, but there isn't actually any need to link the two issues, and many Scots saw Cameron's doing so as an attempt to renege on a promise he'd made barely 48 hours earlier. It's obvious why: ask any two English people how they'd like to see the problem resolved and you'll get three different answers - are we to accept indefinite delay while England attempts to herd cats in a bid to reach agreement on its own governance? Indeed, how much of the political noise we're hearing represents a genuine dissatisfaction with England's constitutional situation and how much of it is simply bellyaching about the uppity Scots, who were largely ignored as long as their silence and acquiescence to neoliberalism were assured? If it's just the money aspect, no-one in Scotland is married to the Barnett Formula.

 

I don't envy Cameron this one.

 

Good analysis. Devolution was the correct thing to do and I suppose the next logical step is devolution in England. In my opinion this will mean separate national parliaments and a federal parliament for UK wide law. It is quite possible that we could see England being split up into regions, given the size of population.

 

I think Cameron gambling on a EU referendum is going to cause major problems. There is a good chance the EU will be in more of a mess in the next few years and Cameron could be recommending that the UK withdraws from the EU. This will not go down well in Scotland and Wales, plus some in N.Ireland won't be happy, given that Ireland is next door using the EURO. The consequence could be the break up of the UK and a collapse of the Northern Ireland government. Plus many businesses in the UK we will be very unhappy and they might not want to invest in the UK or even move jobs to mainland Europe.

 

The UK electorate made a mistake in voting for the Tories back into office and within a few years they may come to regret it. In particular Michael Gove will be taking legislation through parliament for the UK to withdraw from current Human Rights legislation and instead make the UK courts the supreme decider of Human Rights under a New British bill of rights. Some may think this is a good thing, but withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights will mean that the UK cannot continue being part of the EU, as it is a requirement of EU membership. If Cameron cannot negotiate withdrawal from ECHR, it would mean Cameron recommending withdrawal from the EU. This would massively split the Tory party and cause Camerons government to collapse.

[Mr.P]

How could we have missed this: twitter.com/JamesDuddridge/status/595191048181305344/photo/1