UK Elections - The results and musings.

[MurderousToaster]

If I could have voted, I would have voted Labour.

I mean, there's no chance of it getting worse with the same parliament.

 

[steevee]

Their history? You do not know what happened under Thatcher's rule right?

Yeah, I do, but in retrospect, things could hav been much worse. Alright things didnt work out for the best, but the fact is, without her we would still be working with an outdated economic model.

BUt anyway, the only reason I brought up the history is because so many people use that as a reason to bash Tories. They actually have done a lot for this country, and if people spent a few minutes looking at the good people like Thatcher did, instead of just the negative they'd see that they really have no basis for the comments they spew.

 

[marscentral]

I was hoping the Liberal Democrats would do better... and if Labour get back in i'm gonna die. I'm not too fond of the Conservatives, but i'll put up with them if they don't join with Labour

I was hoping both the Tories and Lib Dems would do better. Still, if Cameron and Clegg can work together we might see Labour support drop even further by the next election.

 

[literallyanythingelse]

FUUUU...

Goddamn Tories.

 

[Jory]

The system needs to be changed.

Lib Dems get a fifth of the vote, less than an eleventh of the number of seats.

It's crazy.

(Yeah I voted Lib Dem)

 

[SextusMaximus]

I can't vote but I was all for Lib-Dems, Gordon Brown's a miserable fart and the Torries have policies that I don't agree with.

 

[marscentral]

Their history? You do not know what happened under Thatcher's rule right?

Yeah, I do, but in retrospect, things could hav been much worse. Alright things didnt work out for the best, but the fact is, without her we would still be working with an outdated economic model.

BUt anyway, the only reason I brought up the history is because so many people use that as a reason to bash Tories. They actually have done a lot for this country, and if people spent a few minutes looking at the good people like Thatcher did, instead of just the negative they'd see that they really have no basis for the comments they spew.

Indeed. People are quick to forget that Labour left Thatcher with an economy that failing badly. I also don't remember her starting any illegal wars.

 

[A Username Not In Use]

well I don't know about the rest of you but the sight of members of the Concervative shadow cabinet going live on air and proving to the nation that they don't have the slightest idea of what happens in event of a hung parliment really made my day, that and that my belief that the Lib Dem's should never have gotten rid of Charlie

 

[Nikajo]

#Big snip#

So are you actually saying that if somebody turned up well in advance of 10pm and was not allowed to vote through no fault of their own then that's just their bad luck?

I don't want to fall out with you about this so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Although I do wonder how you would actually feel and react if you were on the receiving end of this. Bearing in mind I'm reffering to the people that turned up before ten, not after.

I do agree with you about the whole being given money for not being allowed to vote though, that is particularly retarded considering the current financial state of this country.

Ah, I didn't make that quite clear, while I do feel quite sorry for those unable to vote it's not their fault, unless they turned up late by choice that is, that they couldn't vote but it also is not the fault of the Government, or the council workers.
It's just something that went a bit badly with no-one to really blame.

But, and I really hate to say this, it makes me sound like all those old people I hated as a young 'un.
Rules are rules, the law is the law etcetera.

If I was turned away? I'd be upset sure, but I would understand why. I certainly wouldn't be acting like some of the people on recordings of it, Screaming at the 80 year old council workers because of a queue? Bad form Britain.

Ah ok I see what you're saying. We agree more than I orgininally thought

Yeah you're right, there has to be a cut off point somewhere. What they should've done (hindsight is a wounderful thing) is have a council member/police officer present to stand at the end of the queue come 10pm and not let anybody else join the queue and let the people already in the queue vote. Obviously this would've cost money and time but at least people would've been able to vote.

The thing I can't get over is that it was literally thousands of people that got turned away. Has this actually happened at previous elections? It's certainly the first time I've ever heard of it.

They certainly didn't need to behave with the ferocity that they did but unfortunately people get very worked up when they are denied what they consider to be their rights. Now I'm just wondering if we're gonna have to do this all over again in a short space of time...?

 

[MysteriousClark]

What I find chilling is that the City and the banks are very keen to have the Tories in. As the people responsible for the economic problems I can't help but worry that their wishes are not exactly altruistic.

Tories have a track record of looking after their rich friends and nothing in their manifesto suggests that things will change any time soon. Mainly this sort of thing is what scares me though:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-welcome-to-cameron-land-1962318.html

 

[SilentHunter7]

Well despite a few thousand people being turn back from the polling station as the queues were too long the votes are pretty much in.

Conservatives: 36.1% of the vote, 295 seats.
Labour: 29%, 252 seats
Lib-Dems: 22% 53 seats (isnt our electoral system weird)

Wait...so the Liberal Democrats got 6 percentage points less votes than Labour, but 1/5 the seats? How does that even work?

Can someone please explain this to an American?

 

[CoffeeScamp]

First off - what a farce, all those people who couldn't vote. Not even a matter of people turning up too late; some had queued for hours and still didn't get to vote.

The system is broken. The Lib Dems gained 1.5 million votes from the 2005 election, and lost 5 seats.

This ^.
Been discussing this elsewhere.. The tories have just under half the seats, but the way the seats are won, this could mean less than 1/4 the country want them - and yet they've got the upper hand, sort of.

As for a coalition between any of the parties.. there's all sorts of possibilities.
I just think that a coalition means the country is controlled by something that most of the country didn't vote for.
Even if someone had wanted and voted for x, that doesn't mean they want x+y+z.. and in fact might not have voted for x if they'd realised they would get z too via some dodgy little power-struggle deal.
Personally I'd rather vote my second choice than my first, if my first came with a side helping of BNP, for example.


A hung parliament though - ohhh, if only that meant we get to hang them and get new ones

(Oh my favourite part of the election. Jacqui Smith - the former Home Secretary loses her seat because her husband watched pay per view porn and wrote it on her MP expenses, thus making her position untenable. Hope he was into the rough stuff cos shes gonna kick his arse all over the place.)

This was also brought up in the office.. small victory

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Their history? You do not know what happened under Thatcher's rule right?

Yeah, I do, but in retrospect, things could hav been much worse. Alright things didnt work out for the best, but the fact is, without her we would still be working with an outdated economic model.

BUt anyway, the only reason I brought up the history is because so many people use that as a reason to bash Tories. They actually have done a lot for this country, and if people spent a few minutes looking at the good people like Thatcher did, instead of just the negative they'd see that they really have no basis for the comments they spew.

Indeed. People are quick to forget that Labour left Thatcher with an economy that failing badly. I also don't remember her starting any illegal wars.

The main reason she fought the Falklands War was so that she didn't lose the next general election. A deal was being brokered but she decided to wade in anyway.

 

[A Username Not In Use]

Well despite a few thousand people being turn back from the polling station as the queues were too long the votes are pretty much in.

Conservatives: 36.1% of the vote, 295 seats.
Labour: 29%, 252 seats
Lib-Dems: 22% 53 seats (isnt our electoral system weird)

Wait...so the Liberal Democrats got 6 percentage points less votes than Labour, but 1/5 the seats? How does that even work?

it would be quicker to wiki it

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Well despite a few thousand people being turn back from the polling station as the queues were too long the votes are pretty much in.

Conservatives: 36.1% of the vote, 295 seats.
Labour: 29%, 252 seats
Lib-Dems: 22% 53 seats (isnt our electoral system weird)

Wait...so the Liberal Democrats got 6 percentage points less votes than Labour, but 1/5 the seats? How does that even work?

Can someone please explain this to an American?

It's the First Past the Post system. Proportionally, the Lib Dems should get more seats. However, that's not how the system works.

In one of our 650 constituencies, you vote for a candidate from a party.

For example, let's say a Conservative candidate got 19,000 votes, and the Lib Dem candidate got 18,500. Because the Conservative candidate has a majority of votes, however small, they win the seat, and we can basically discard all those Lib Dem votes.

Lib Dem support is basically very spread out.

That is why the Lib Dems get so few seats, and why they keep campaigning for electoral reform.

 

[SilentHunter7]

See as much as people ***** about America's 2 party system the point is at least neither right nor left vote is significantly split. Little to no danger of a hung senate.

Oh, how I wish.

The 111th Senate is quite possibly the most gridlocked and ineffective governing body since Rome. All thanks to a loophole in the way the Senate conducts business that requires 60% of the vote to go forward with anything. And since the Dems only have 59/100, they can't do anything, because the minority Republicans stonewall any legislation they want to pass.

Edited out a comment that in hindsight, kinda sounded unintentionally arrogant

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

See as much as people ***** about America's 2 party system the point is at least neither right nor left vote is significantly split. Little to no danger of a hung senate.

Oh, how I wish.

The 111th Senate is quite possibly the most gridlocked and ineffective governing body since Rome. All thanks to a loophole in the way the Senate conducts business that requires 60% of the vote to go forward with anything. And since the Dems only have 59/100, they can't do anything, because the minority Republicans stonewall any legislation they want to pass.

That would explain why the restrictions on the banks Obama wanted to put in place got voted down.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well despite a few thousand people being turn back from the polling station as the queues were too long the votes are pretty much in.

Conservatives: 36.1% of the vote, 295 seats.
Labour: 29%, 252 seats
Lib-Dems: 22% 53 seats (isnt our electoral system weird)

So are you happy with the result? Did your candidate win? What are your predictions for the next week or so?

(Oh my favourite part of the election. Jacqui Smith - the former Home Secretary loses her seat because her husband watched pay per view porn and wrote it on her MP expenses, thus making her position untenable. Hope he was into the rough stuff cos shes gonna kick his arse all over the place.)

I am sorry but could you try explain to me why the Libdems have 22% of votes?