General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[EM2]

Er I voted in my local council election at the same time as voting for my MP. So I get a say in who is elected to my local council.

Skilfully dodged the point about MEPs there, I see...

 

[Dave1987]

You weren't even born when hundreds of other laws were passed (the Acts Of Union, for example). Do you want a referendum on those too?

As for the second point, if there is the right to do something, then there is also the right not to do it (unless it's specifically prohibited).

So why don't you want a vote on whether we stay in the EU or not? Is that because the party you support tell you that they think we should stay in so they wont give you a choice.

Everyone has the right to vote. Everyone has the right not to vote. But those you choose not to bother have no right to complain about who forms the next govt as you haven't used your vote. Funnily enough had all those people who were eligible vote actually done so the current political map would probably look completely different. For instance Mr Balls probably wouldn't have lost his seat had all the Labour supporters registered and gone to the polling booth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Skilfully dodged the point about MEPs there, I see...

I have no idea what MEP's do at the European council. The EU leader Claude Junker was elected without a vote. If we have an EU referendum the whole EU process should become clear. Just because we are going to be given a vote on it doesn't mean we will leave. I don't remember Mr Brown asking the British people when he signed away a load of powers to Brussels. He just did it. Same as when he sold all that gold when the price was at its lowest.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If you say so, to complain about a supposedly vicious and heartless party who care only for the rich and then fail to vote against them, or even vote at all, is inexcusable though

If my constituency had a Labour majority of 100000 in an electorate of 101000 I would still use my vote as a protest against them rather than fail to use that right

And once again I'll use the same example. "Why didn't you say no?" is no defence when on trial for rape.

 

[ExRes]

Must go and apply that to David Cameron.
All voters in the UK minus those who didn't vote or voted somebody else other than Tory.
Have i got it right.
So that's 11 million voting Tory out of 44 million voters.
That's David Cameron running the country with 25% of all who had a vote.
Doesn't seem right.

I think you're a bit late there, it's already been done but, naturally enough, it can't be mentioned about anyone else

 

[Seacook]

The EU leader Claude Junker was elected without a vote.

Our head of state was appointed without a vote. we won't get a vote on the next one either.

 

[ExRes]

And once again I'll use the same example. "Why didn't you say no?" is no defence when on trial for rape.

What are you talking about, if I voted against the person I didn't want in power I would be saying no and I'd be saying it with a very much louder voice than failing to vote at all

As for the constant references to rape, I think you're trivialising an extremely nasty offence by using it in a totally unnecessary context

 

[Starmill]

The idea that Micheal Gove is going to have us effectively withdrawn from the European Convention on Human Rights by scrapping the Human Rights Act makes me feel physically ill. What was it David Cameron said "Let us not go back to square one." - well that's exactly what this is. If we do this, we will have no voice whatsoever to condemn human rights abuses across the world, and will be leading by terrible example.

 

[EM2]

So why don't you want a vote on whether we stay in the EU or not? Is that because the party you support tell you that they think we should stay in so they wont give you a choice.

No. It's because I've read a range of material in relation to the EU, what it means, how it works and how it affects the UK, and *in my opinion*, it's a positive thing to be a member of.

Everyone has the right to vote. Everyone has the right not to vote. But those you choose not to bother have no right to complain about who forms the next govt as you haven't used your vote. Funnily enough had all those people who were eligible vote actually done so the current political map would probably look completely different. For instance Mr Balls probably wouldn't have lost his seat had all the Labour supporters registered and gone to the polling booth.

Yes, you do. You have a right to complain about anything.
I'm not a woman, but that doesn't mean that I can't complain about the treatment that they receive, with lower pay, discrimination, being charged VAT on sanitary products, the danger they face from FGM, and a myriad of other issues.

I have no idea what MEP's do at the European council. The EU leader Claude Junker was elected without a vote. If we have an EU referendum the whole EU process should become clear. Just because we are going to be given a vote on it doesn't mean we will leave. I don't remember Mr Brown asking the British people when he signed away a load of powers to Brussels. He just did it. Same as when he sold all that gold when the price was at its lowest.

Maybe you should learn? MEPs sit in the European Parliament, the European Council is made up of heads of state.
Jean-Claude Juncker is the president of the European Commission and he WAS elected with a vote -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juncker_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Appointment

 

[TheKnightWho]

What are you talking about, if I voted against the person I didn't want in power I would be saying no and I'd be saying it with a very much louder voice than failing to vote at all

As for the constant references to rape, I think you're trivialising an extremely nasty offence by using it in a totally unnecessary context

And the point I'm saying is that it doesn't matter *how* you say no - it is not consent to do nothing.

You can get as offended as you like - it's an issue of consent. That I used rape is utterly irrelevant - it's just the best understood example. I think you distracting from that to avoid the point is extremely patronising.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Er I voted in my local council election at the same time as voting for my MP. So I get a say in who is elected to my local council.

You also get to vote for your MEP, so you get a say in who is in the European Parliament. There doesn't appear to be any difference in this regard that would justify having a referendum on one but not the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So why don't you want a vote on whether we stay in the EU or not? Is that because the party you support tell you that they think we should stay in so they wont give you a choice.

Personally, I don't particularly want a referendum on the EU because we have a system of representative democracy in which we elect MPs who determine laws etc. (Parliament also delegates some of that decision-making to other bodies such as local authorities and the EU - but that doesn't change the principle). The idea is that voters have an indirect say in laws, via the fact that they can vote out MPs whom they don't like, but keeps the huge advantage that laws and decisions are made by people whose job is to make some study of the issues, and who are therefore likely to be far better informed than the average citizen. That system has worked well for a very long time, and I don't particularly want to see it undermined by random referenda every time some newspaper or political party gets it into its head to make out that it's somehow undemocratic not to have a referendum on <insert whatever the pet issue is>

I'm willing to accept that there may well be some special circumstances that justify abandoning representative democracy and using a referendum in certain special situations, but I've never seen any attempt to rationalize what those situations might be. Certainly, you've not provided any reason to believe that there's anything particularly special about the EU that would justify special treatment in this regard, despite my inviting you several times to provide a reason.

 

[St Rollox]

I think you're a bit late there, it's already been done but, naturally enough, it can't be mentioned about anyone else

You except it for now and move on.
I fully support PR.
As a socialist i have my own views of Ukip, which wouldn't take much to guess.
Still, 4 million votes and one seat is nonsense.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

You except it for now and move on.
I fully support PR.
As a socialist i have my own views of Ukip, which wouldn't take much to guess.
Still, 4 million votes and one seat is nonsense.

PR would also have given more seats to the Lib Dems, Greens, and taken some from SNP, Tories and Labour.
It would stop a minority ruling the country ever again.

 

[TheKnightWho]

PR would also have given more seats to the Lib Dems, Greens, and taken some from SNP, Tories and Labour.
It would stop a minority ruling the country ever again.

A Tory-UKIP-DUP effective majority would be awful though, although it would at least have a much fairer mandate.

PR doesn't give any option for further preferences to allow you to make your voice heard on parties you really dislike. STV does.

 

[Dave1987]

Our head of state was appointed without a vote. we won't get a vote on the next one either.

Well I am a republican way of thinking when it comes to the Monarchy to be honest. I think the Royals are a vast waste of taxpayers money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A Tory-UKIP-DUP effective majority would be awful though, although it would at least have a much fairer mandate.

PR doesn't give any option for further preferences to allow you to make your voice heard on parties you really dislike. STV does.

You make it sound like you are trying to work out a voting system that keeps Labour and Socialists in power. The SNP, The Greens, and PC way over played their hand in this election claiming they would lock out the Tories from Number 10.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You also get to vote for your MEP, so you get a say in who is in the European Parliament. There doesn't appear to be any difference in this regard that would justify having a referendum on one but not the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Personally, I don't particularly want a referendum on the EU because we have a system of representative democracy in which we elect MPs who determine laws etc. (Parliament also delegates some of that decision-making to other bodies such as local authorities and the EU - but that doesn't change the principle). The idea is that voters have an indirect say in laws, via the fact that they can vote out MPs whom they don't like, but keeps the huge advantage that laws and decisions are made by people whose job is to make some study of the issues, and who are therefore likely to be far better informed than the average citizen. That system has worked well for a very long time, and I don't particularly want to see it undermined by random referenda every time some newspaper or political party gets it into its head to make out that it's somehow undemocratic not to have a referendum on <insert whatever the pet issue is>

I'm willing to accept that there may well be some special circumstances that justify abandoning representative democracy and using a referendum in certain special situations, but I've never seen any attempt to rationalize what those situations might be. Certainly, you've not provided any reason to believe that there's anything particularly special about the EU that would justify special treatment in this regard, despite my inviting you several times to provide a reason.

We haven't had a vote on Europe for over 30 years! Its not like we had one yesterday is it. If the outcome of the referendum is overwhelming to stay in the EU then the matter can be put to bed for another 20-30 years can't it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You make it sound like you are trying to work out a voting system that keeps Labour and Socialists in power. The SNP, The Greens, and PC way over played their hand in this election claiming they would lock out the Tories from Number 10.

I'm looking for a voting system that is unlikely to give anyone a majority, because that way at least we get compromise. Because that's exactly how this country should be run.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm willing to accept that there may well be some special circumstances that justify abandoning representative democracy and using a referendum in certain special situations, but I've never seen any attempt to rationalize what those situations might be. Certainly, you've not provided any reason to believe that there's anything particularly special about the EU that would justify special treatment in this regard, despite my inviting you several times to provide a reason.

I think the Irish Republic are an example we could learn from.

If we'd endorsed some of the major constitutional changes brought about by the EU through referendum (or not as the case may be) rather as the Irish did with the Lisbon treaty and previous ones, we'd have a relationship with Europe that was more securely grounded in the wishes of the public (albeit probably slightly more semi-detached) and more realistic as to what the British public would accept.

As it happens, we've pushed everything through in our usual way and trust in the process is non-existant, hence the demand for an in out referendum now, which frankly probably isn't strategically desirable in terms of scope or timing. I'm afraid that the Establishment, both British and European, is to blame for this situation.

 

[EM2]

We haven't had a vote on Europe for over 30 years! Its not like we had one yesterday is it. If the outcome of the referendum is overwhelming to stay in the EU then the matter can be put to bed for another 20-30 years can't it.

We haven't had a vote on Union with Scotland ever.
What is it about the EU that worries you so much? What is it that they've done that has actually caused any issues?

 

[radamfi]

GCSE Politics question:

If each of the 650 seats have equal population and turnout, calculate the total percentage vote and number of seats assuming:

In 325 seats, 50% vote Conservative, 49% vote Lib Dem and 1% vote Labour
In the other 325 seats, 50% vote Labour, 49% vote Lib Dem and 1% vote Conservative

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

GCSE Politics question:

If each of the 650 seats have equal population and turnout, calculate the total percentage vote and number of seats assuming:

In 325 seats, 50% vote Conservative, 49% vote Lib Dem and 1% vote Labour
In the other 325 seats, 50% vote Labour, 49% vote Lib Dem and 1% vote Conservative

Con = 325 seats and 25.5% of the vote. Same for Lab. Total 51% for 'Tied' Parliament.
Lid Dem = 0 seats and 49% of vote.

 

[Oswyntail]

PR would also have given more seats to the Lib Dems, Greens, and taken some from SNP, Tories and Labour.
It would stop a minority ruling the country ever again.

Probably the opposite would be the case, surely? Or are you maintaining that a coalition, which is necessarily based on compromise, represents the sum of two blocks of supporters?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Probably the opposite would be the case, surely? Or are you maintaining that a coalition, which is necessarily based on compromise, represents the sum of two blocks of supporters?

Well if the current set up stays the same except for PR being used. Then a minority government could be appointed by our Royal Family nonsense (that belongs in the Dark Ages in my opinion).
But a minority government could be voted against and not pass laws that the other parties don't want. A coalition will be needed, but that is better for the public than one party in charge as it stops ideological, radical and silly government acts passing as much. All parties have some interesting ideas that sppeal to the public, even minor one's like the Free United Kingdom Party that Al Murray set up (free dogs!).

 

[ainsworth74]

Well here's a surprise. Galloway doesn't seem able to go quietly into the night and is kicking up a fuss with the result in Bradford West:

George Galloway to challenge Bradford West election result

Former MP George Galloway has announced he has started legal proceedings to challenge his general election defeat.

Mr Galloway, leader of the Respect Party, lost his Bradford West seat to Labour's Naz Shah, who he has alleged made "false statements" during the campaign to affect the result.

He also claimed "widespread malpractice" involving postal voting meant the result must be "set aside".

A Labour spokesman said the action was "pathetic and without any foundation".

Mr Galloway won the Bradford West seat in a by-election in 2012, but lost to Ms Shah - who secured a majority of more than 11,000 in last week's general election.

However, the bitter campaign was dogged by claims and counter-claims between Labour and Respect over a number of issues - particularly relating to Ms Shah's family background.

Labour accused Mr Galloway of breaching election law by making false statements during the campaign.

'Divisive politics'

A spokesman for Mr Galloway said the legal action was at an early stage.

A complaint had been made under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which related to candidates making false statements during campaigns, the spokesman said.

In a further statement, Mr Galloway - a former Labour MP - said: "It has come to my notice that there has been widespread malpractice in this election, particularly over postal voting.

"We are in the process of compiling the information which will form part of our petition to have the result set aside."

A Labour spokesman said: "George Galloway should accept he was booted out by the people of Bradford West.

"They saw through his divisive politics and made a positive choice, by a majority of well over 11,000, to elect a brilliant new MP, Naz Shah."

Mr Galloway was reported to police on Thursday for allegedly sending a tweet about exit polls before voting closed - which is banned under election law.

His spokesman called the allegation a "storm in a thimble".

Source

 

[me123]

Well, hopefully this nonsense will take up a lot of his time. Anything that keeps him away from actual politics has got to be good news.

 

[St Rollox]

Afraid very little sympathy will come from Scotland for George Galloway.
His lining up with the unionists finished him off.

 

[adrock1976]

Well here's a surprise. Galloway doesn't seem able to go quietly into the night and is kicking up a fuss with the result in Bradford West:



Source

How I perceive things regarding the Bradford West campaign, it sounds like it has the levels of bitterness similar to the Bermondsey by-election of 1983. Although it must be said that both Peter Tatchell and Simon Hughes resolved their differences in later years, with Tatchell even lending his support to Hughes when he ran for the Lib Dem leadership contest.

Well, hopefully this nonsense will take up a lot of his time. Anything that keeps him away from actual politics has got to be good news.

Afraid very little sympathy will come from Scotland for George Galloway.
His lining up with the unionists finished him off.

I slightly disagree here - I believe it was when he appeared on Celebrity Big Brother (dressed in a leotard and pretending to be a cat lapping milk from Rula Lenska's hands) was when he lost all credibility as an MP.

Also, the general pattern that has happened over the years is that he has a habit of riding on the crest of the wave when elected, then starts to fall out with people who disagree with him, or when his ego takes over. For example, he fell out with nearly everybody in his home city of Dundee, parachuted into Glasgow Kelvin, did not want to stand against Mohammed Sarwar in the 2005 General Election (Glasgow Kelvin became part of an enlarged Glasgow Central), parachuted into Bethnal Green & Bow under Respect, fell out with everybody there, and skip forward to Bradford West where he seems to be falling out with people there too.

In peace

Adam

 

[47802]

Afraid very little sympathy will come from Scotland for George Galloway.
His lining up with the unionists finished him off.

As an Independent with a Bradford Seat I was somewhat bemused as to how or why he was on some of the independence debates.

I think he needs to take the hint from his Bradford constituency and take early retirement, maybe he can have another go at CBB.

 

[ExRes]

And the point I'm saying is that it doesn't matter *how* you say no - it is not consent to do nothing.

You can get as offended as you like - it's an issue of consent. That I used rape is utterly irrelevant - it's just the best understood example. I think you distracting from that to avoid the point is extremely patronising.

I think that if you asked Ed Balls, Alison Seabeck and Luke Pollard, their view of saying no by not voting would not be at the top of their favourites list, you can probably add Ed Miliband as well

Did I say I was offended ?, rape is a descriptive word that many people have been angered by over the last few years when used in an inappropriate and trivial manner, such as your use of it on here, I would consider myself to be in good company

Your stupid comments like 'distracting' and 'extremely patronising' are best left without a response

 

[Groningen]

From what i read in the dutch media it says that (the next) 5 years long prices of traintickets will only rise with the rate of inflation. Ed Milliband; sincerly know that he was Labour frontman, but what he did before that is totally unknown with most dutch nationals. I see a UK where the haves become bigger and the havenots become losers.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think that if you asked Ed Balls, Alison Seabeck and Luke Pollard, their view of saying no by not voting would not be at the top of their favourites list, you can probably add Ed Miliband as well...

Of course, it is quite possible that those who didn't vote would have voted against this bunch anyway. We will leave them the figleaf of pretending otherwise, though.

 

[table38]

Your stupid comments like 'distracting' and 'extremely patronising' are best left without a response

Don't take it personally, he finds me "deeply patronising". I'm not sure if that's higher or lower on the ricther scale of patronising adverbs