General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Johnuk123]

.....

 

[radamfi]

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.

That only applies to regulated tickets and a lot of fares are unregulated. Also, restrictions on regulated tickets may be increased, meaning you have to get an unregulated ticket in the future.

 

[DownSouth]

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

Same with your head of government too, Mr Cameron was elected to the position of Prime Minister by the members of parliament, just like the President of the European Union is elected by the members of the European Parliament.

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

It depends on what sort of voting system is used. PR is not a system, it is a name used for the grouping of a whole range of systems.

Hare-Clark (the form of STV being discussed on here every time it comes up) would be quite a viable method for achieving proportional representation in an upper house (i.e. a democratically reformed House of Lords). It wouldn't be anything new if it was used that way, it would simply be copying the method used in Australia to achieve proportional representation from each state when they elect six or twelve Senators.

For electing a more proportional lower house, I'm in favour of using the additional member system (with the additional members being the party's highest-polling losing candidates) combined with an Instant Run-off Vote (worldwide name, in the UK it's known as AV) in each local constituency. IRV gives you the best method of electing a single local member (by allowing preferences and requiring a majority of support) and also allowing the first preference to count towards the party's national total.
This would hit a snag when someone votes for an Independent first, but that could be resolved by counting the highest preference the voter gives to a party-endorsed candidate toward's that party's national total.

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.

But that would require politicians to act like adults!

 

[Senex]

IRV gives you the best method of electing a single local member (by allowing preferences and requiring a majority of support) and also allowing the first preference to count towards the party's national total.

Why the attachment to the single local member? Would it not be better to have larger, multi-member constituencies so that more residents could feel they were actually represented in parliament? The notion that a member really knows their constituency ceased to mean very much long ago in many instances, as did the notion that we can actually know our MPs. And how can a Tory in a solid Labour seat or vice versa feel their views to have any representation at all? Or are most MPs nowadays there just to be glorified social workers, leaving a very view in ministerial positions actually to have an influence on national and international policy?

 

[TheKnightWho]

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

It's always funny how you stop replying when you realise you have nothing to say

And ExRes I don't care who would "agree" with me, you've yet to actually, you know, address the point. The point is that it's an example, and all you've done is bristled at the use of rape as an example rather than explaining why I'm wrong.

Or are you the sort of person that thinks if someone doesn't say no to something that they actually agree to it? Because that's incredibly naive, and frankly wrong.

 

[ExRes]

It's always funny how you stop replying when you realise you have nothing to say

And ExRes I don't care who would "agree" with me, you've yet to actually, you know, address the point. The point is that it's an example, and all you've done is bristled at the use of rape as an example rather than explaining why I'm wrong.

Or are you the sort of person that thinks if someone doesn't say no to something that they actually agree to it? Because that's incredibly naive, and frankly wrong.

I have no intention of saying anything more after this

If you wish to sit back and let things happen without making any effort to stop it then fair enough, you and the people like you can put up with whatever happens due to your and their indifference, I have made my stand perfectly clear and that is where I will remain

I really wish you would stop making things up as you go along, I am not 'offended' and most certainly not 'bristling' and I have explained why I think you're wrong to use the word rape, try reading before commenting for once

I'm sure you'll be itching to reply, you just can't stop yourself despite your 'I don't care who would agree with me', don't hold your breath for a response from me as I've better things to occupy myself with, so rant away ......

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have no intention of saying anything more after this

If you wish to sit back and let things happen without making any effort to stop it then fair enough, you and the people like you can put up with whatever happens due to your and their indifference, I have made my stand perfectly clear and that is where I will remain

I really wish you would stop making things up as you go along, I am not 'offended' and most certainly not 'bristling' and I have explained why I think you're wrong to use the word rape, try reading before commenting for once

I'm sure you'll be itching to reply, you just can't stop yourself despite your 'I don't care who would agree with me', don't hold your breath for a response from me as I've better things to occupy myself with, so rant away ......

Ah, typical, you set yourself up so I lose if I reply and I lose if I don't

You've still yet to address the point, though, even though you've managed to write a whole 4 paragraphs.

"If you wish to sit back and let things happen without making any effort to stop it then fair enough, you and the people like you can put up with whatever happens due to your and their indifference"

And as I've said several times, this kind of attitude does not wash in a court of law where consent is an issue. There is a reason for that.

 

[table38]

It's always funny how you stop replying when you realise you have nothing to say

Sorry to disappoint you, but sometimes I stop replying because I'm enjoying spending the day with friends travelling around various triangular junctions between London, Norwich and Ipswich, then spending 2½ hours sat in Platform 1 at Euston

I certainly don't have the time or the inclination to spend as much time on here as some people clearly do.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Sorry to disappoint you, but sometimes I stop replying because I'm enjoying spending the day with friends travelling around various triangular junctions between London, Norwich and Ipswich, then spending 2½ hours sat in Platform 1 at Euston

I certainly don't have the time or the inclination to spend as much time on here as some people clearly do.

Or perhaps some of us are capable of multitasking

 

[table38]

Or perhaps some of us are capable of multitasking

Whilst some of us would prefer to give our full attention to our friends and enjoy the trip rather than breaking off to check our mobile phones every five minutes

 

[Dave1987]

I think todays dictation by the EU today just shows why there is so much ill feeling towards it and why we need a referendum. The EU saying today that Britain must increase its intake of non-EU migrants crossing the Med is just ridiculous. We are supposed to be discouraging them not saying if we find you in the middle of the Med we will take you to Italy, France, Britain etc where you can claim asylum. The EU should be focussing on why these people are trying to cross the Med to Europe.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I think todays dictation by the EU today just shows why there is so much ill feeling towards it and why we need a referendum. The EU saying today that Britain must increase its intake of non-EU migrants crossing the Med is just ridiculous. We are supposed to be discouraging them not saying if we find you in the middle of the Med we will take you to Italy, France, Britain etc where you can claim asylum. The EU should be focussing on why these people are trying to cross the Med to Europe.

"Today's dictation"

That EU we have MEPs in, you mean? That thing that everyone forgets about. And the EU's solution is to bomb various sites in Libya - something the UK apparently supports.

 

[Dave1987]

"Today's dictation"

That EU we have MEPs in, you mean? That thing that everyone forgets about. And the EU's solution is to bomb various sites in Libya - something the UK apparently supports.

So you are happy for the EU to say to us that we must accept a doubling in our non-EU migration? Libya has rejected the notion of destroying the boats the traffickers use. The Libyan Govt is clearly happy for these boats to continue to cross the Med.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So you are happy for the EU to say to us that we must accept a doubling in our non-EU migration? Libya has rejected the notion of destroying the boats the traffickers use. The Libyan Govt is clearly happy for these boats to continue to cross the Med.

But half of the complaints about the EU involving immigration are that they force us to place low limits on non-EU migration! You're forgetting that non-EU countries also involve places like America, Canada, Australia etc.

The Daily Mail will of course report this as the heathen hordes coming to invade our land, but it has nothing to do with the boat int the Med or anything like that. Plus I really don't see why we shouldn't help people in those kinds of situations - morality doesn't stop at the national border.

 

[St Rollox]

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.

Back in 1992 after the Tories pulled a rabbit out the hat just like 2015, George was involved in holding a public meeting in Glasgow.
Several thousand turned under the banner of Scotland United.
George called for Scotland to go it's own way.
Scotland United became a joke term for a few years for any political idea that was never followed through.
George then pops up years later on the unionist side with some pretty odd ideas on why he was against the YES campaign.
Even those on the No side found it embarrassing.

His defeat in Bradford last week didn't go unnoticed in Scotland by those on the YES side.

 

[EM2]

I think todays dictation by the EU today just shows why there is so much ill feeling towards it and why we need a referendum. The EU saying today that Britain must increase its intake of non-EU migrants crossing the Med is just ridiculous. We are supposed to be discouraging them not saying if we find you in the middle of the Med we will take you to Italy, France, Britain etc where you can claim asylum. The EU should be focussing on why these people are trying to cross the Med to Europe.

The EU knows why they're trying to cross, it's because they're fleeing from a war zone.
But you do what instead? Let people drown? Blockade Libya so they're forced to live there with nothing?

I'll ask again. What worries you so much about the EU?

 

[Manchester77]

Seems like Gove will be in for a hard time trying the repeal the Human Rights Act thanks to devolution doesn't seem like there'll be any easy way to do it without (most likely) triggering a second referendum.

 

[DarloRich]

The EU knows why they're trying to cross, it's because they're fleeing from a war zone.
But you do what instead? Let people drown? Blockade Libya so they're forced to live there with nothing?

I'll ask again. What worries you so much about the EU?

its forigners init

 

[Oswyntail]

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.

I think it is only the HRA that is to be scrapped and replace with something that is better thought through. I doubt there will be an abandonment of the ECHR.

Same with your head of government too, Mr Cameron was elected to the position of Prime Minister by the members of parliament, ....

Sadly, your grasp of the British way is deficient. The Prime Minister is the person invited by the Monarch to form a government. Normally she invites who she is advised can command the most support in the House. In theory, she could choose any MP. Definitely NOT elected by MPs. (Party leaders are elected by a variety of means, themselves not restricted to MPs votes)

 

[TheKnightWho]

I think it is only the HRA that is to be scrapped and replace with something that is better thought through. I doubt there will be an abandonment of the ECHR.

No - it doesn't do anything except mean appeals will now have to go through Strasbourg instead. Convenient for the Conservatives - it means more anti-EU propaganda for them.

The proposed "British Bill of Rights" as proposed in its original press release took away protection from several vulnerable groups including gypsies and illegal immigrants, but of course no-one actually cares about them apparently so who cares if their rights are taken away, right? The whole point of human rights is that they apply to everyone universally - getting to apply them to people you deem worthy is not acceptable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The EU saying today that Britain must increase its intake of non-EU migrants crossing the Med is just ridiculous. We are supposed to be discouraging them not saying if we find you in the middle of the Med we will take you to Italy, France, Britain etc where you can claim asylum. The EU should be focussing on why these people are trying to cross the Med to Europe.

That's not what the EU have suggested, and it is interesting it is being portrayed that way.

The issue is that some EU states take many more refugees than others, and the EU think it'd be better for everyone if it they were more fairly distributed. Germany expect to be receiving around 400,000 asylum applications per year by the end of 2015. By comparison, the UK currently receives around 31,000 asylum applications per year.

Source: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/gl...ects-number-asylum-seekers-double-2015-314391

Among EU member states, Germany remains the most popular target country for asylum seekers. In 2014, Germany processed 172,945 first-time applications, according to Eurostat, followed by Sweden (74,980), Italy (63,000), France (57,000) and the United Kingdom (31,070). With the population of each state factored in, Sweden topped the list by a long way.

The EU, along with most observers, know exactly why people are fleeing Syria (a civil war) and know what to do to stop them (end the civil war that they are fleeing).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it is only the HRA that is to be scrapped and replace with something that is better thought through. I doubt there will be an abandonment of the ECHR.

The HRA basically mirrors the ECHR, and brings the ECHR into UK law.

I suspect that something "better thought through" will simply allow the UK government to decide to ignore the ECHR during the war on terror due to terrorism in a national emergency when it is inconvenient.

Given that the Conservatives are incapable of understanding that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or the EC, and given that Theresa May doesn't have a problem with GCHQ getting to do whatever they want without scrutiny, I don't share your optimism that abolishing the HRA will make things better.

 

[me123]

Well, Nigel Farage's resignation was even more short lived than we thought it would be. "The Party" has declined his resignation in light of his "overwhelming popularity" and he will continue to be leader of UKIP for the foreseeable future.

Publicity stunt done, let's move on...

 

[SS4]

Well, Nigel Farage's resignation was even more short lived than we thought it would be. "The Party" has declined his resignation in light of his "overwhelming popularity" and he will continue to be leader of UKIP for the foreseeable future.

Publicity stunt done, let's move on...

Hopefully this will make people realise that Farage is not the man down the pub but is as stage managed better than any of them

 

[Busaholic]

Hopefully this will make people realise that Farage is not the man down the pub but is as stage managed better than any of them

And with serious financial backers like Stuart Wheeler. Interesting that their only MP, the principled Douglas Carswell, has been quoted that UKIP should choose another leader (and not himself).

 

[DownSouth]

Sadly, your grasp of the British way is deficient. The Prime Minister is the person invited by the Monarch to form a government. Normally she invites who she is advised can command the most support in the House. In theory, she could choose any MP. Definitely NOT elected by MPs. (Party leaders are elected by a variety of means, themselves not restricted to MPs votes)

I know quite well that the monarch commissions the person who has the support of the majority of MPs, giving it the effect of them being elected by the MPs but without a vote actually taking place.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think todays dictation by the EU today just shows why there is so much ill feeling towards it and why we need a referendum. The EU saying today that Britain must increase its intake of non-EU migrants crossing the Med is just ridiculous. We are supposed to be discouraging them not saying if we find you in the middle of the Med we will take you to Italy, France, Britain etc where you can claim asylum. The EU should be focussing on why these people are trying to cross the Med to Europe.

So, is this your criteria for a referendum? The EU does something that you personally disagree with, and therefore we must have a referendum?

Can I use this same logic whenever the UK Government or my local council does something that I personally disagree with, and on the basis of them having done something I disagree with, demand a referendum on whether the UK Government or my local council should have the powers that it does?

I note by the way that you have *still* not given any rationalization for what supposedly makes the issue of the EU so unique that it requires a referendum, when, apparently, no other issues, no matter how important, require one.

 

[Groningen]

It becomes more and more clear to us in the Netherlands that your vote was not so much a british election, but an european one. Cameron says that he has now a clear mandate and that he comes to us to argue with us for more exceptions. If we allow that; what stops other countries to do the same.

 

[telstarbox]

I'm not sure about that. I think those who want us to leave the EU make a lot of noise (including those MPs on the right wing of the Conservative Party) but don't necessarily speak for the majority.

The Conservatives effectively limited their campaign to their economic messages and this resonated with enough voters to give them a majority.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not sure about that. I think those who want us to leave the EU make a lot of noise (including those MPs on the right wing of the Conservative Party) but don't necessarily speak for the majority.

It's worth pointing out that it isn't just those on the right that are opposed to the EU. Many on the left (the late Bob Crow for one) are opposed due to concerns that it supports privatisation, erosion of workers' rights, encourages tax avoidance, and reduces wages.

 

[SS4]

The Conservatives effectively limited their campaign to their economic messages and this resonated with enough voters to give them a majority.

I got the impression they preyed on the fears of England being ruled by the SNP: "vote Labour, get SNP"