Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

Who did you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 137 13.9%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 378 38.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 304 30.9%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 27 2.7%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 10 1.0%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 20 2.0%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • DUP

    Votes: 4 0.4%

  • UUP

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • SDLP

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 1.6%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 80 8.1%
  • Total voters
    985
  • Poll closed .
Staying up for the result turned out to be an utter waste of time. I've actually no idea what I want to see happen now... I think I'd have actually preferred a Conservative absolute majority to this. I like the idea of a hung parliament, but my realism overrides my idealism, and this is not the time for weak government. I hope we get a decision soon though.

First past the post has failed us miserably, given that it's two biggest plus points are that it's quick and that it gives strong government. It failed on both counts, although, the result was still decided significantly more quickly than it would have been under a proportional system I feel.
 
Energize said:
The UK tax system is so screwed up I can't believe it.

By raising the personal allowance to an average liveable wage (which the minimum wage is supposed to be) we ensure that people are taxed only on disposable income, this eliminates tax credits and allows you to have one flat tax for everyones disposable income which can be set at any level without risk of causing poverty. This would save so much money in paperwork it's unreal.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that the level of an average liveable wage is going to be very painful for some yet very generous for others. The amount you need to earn in, say, London, to live with a net £0 income is very different to what you need to earn in the Welsh valleys to be in the same situation.
 
Last edited:
naffa said:
I like the idea of a hung parliament, but my realism overrides my idealism, and this is not the time for weak government.
Click to expand...

The problem is that we've been FTTP for so long that our politicians don't know how to make a coalition, proportionally represented government work. We need to learn from Europe on this. They get just as much done as our government, and they better represent the people who elected them. Our system needs changing, sooner rather than later. How is it fair that despite gaining only 6% less votes than Labour, the Lib Dems get 201 less seats than them? It isn't fair and it needs changing. Votes should be proportionate to MPs.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Slick said:
The problem is that we've been FTTP for so long that our politicians don't know how to make a coalition, proportionally represented government work. We need to learn from Europe on this.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a fair assessment. Our politicians aren't ignorant of how to make it work, it's just that in Europe it's constitutionally defined. Our system is focussed on how to wield maximum power and be able to pursue an ideological doctrine of your choice.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Slick said:
It isn't fair and it needs changing. Votes should be proportionate to MPs.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. Like I said, it's merely the timing that's my biggest concern. But the thing that really bewilders me is the fact that the Tories are still clinging to first past the post. Who in their right mind would cling to a system that gave them fifty less seats than a rival party, when they got a near equal amount of votes.
 
naffa said:
I couldn't agree more. Like I said, it's merely the timing that's my biggest concern. But the thing that really bewilders me is the fact that the Tories are still clinging to first past the post. Who in their right mind would cling to a system that gave them fifty less seats than a rival party, when they got a near equal amount of votes.
Click to expand...

They're better off with the current system that slightly favours Labour as opposed to one that will lose them a lot of seats and end up with a hung parliament in every election.
 
PMKeates said:
The trouble is that the level of an average liveable wage is going to be very painful for some yet very generous for others. The amount you need to earn in, say, London, to live with a net £0 income is very different to what you need to earn in the Welsh valleys to be in the same situation.
Click to expand...

A different average wage for each of the countries would help with that to a degree, by incorporating council tax into income tax you also distribute the tax burden to people living in cheaper rural areas, however a revised benefit system whereby vouchers are given to those earning below a certain amount depending on where they live could prevent problems caused by fluctuations in living costs.
 
naffa said:
I couldn't agree more. Like I said, it's merely the timing that's my biggest concern. But the thing that really bewilders me is the fact that the Tories are still clinging to first past the post. Who in their right mind would cling to a system that gave them fifty less seats than a rival party, when they got a near equal amount of votes.
Click to expand...
The Conservatives are planning on constituency and voting reform, but not electoral reform (keeping FPTP).

They want to make sure that in every election, each constituency is made up of the roughly the same number of constituents, unlike now where there is massive variation.

If implemented, it would mean one vote actually equals one vote.

It might not produce a parliament that is representative of the national vote, but we don't vote nationally - do we? We vote locally.
 
Capture_copy.jpg
 
Clegg doesn't have much power at all really... He's just hoping he can get a bearable deal with the Conservatives because siding with labour will not get him a majority, or not even particularly close to a majority. In fact, for a coalition to oppose the Conservatives, it would need to include almost every party with only 10 or so MPs siding with the Conservatives.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
It might not produce a parliament that is representative of the national vote, but we don't vote nationally - do we? We vote locally.
Click to expand...

In theory maybe, but in reality many vote for the party they want in government not caring about their local MP. Any decisions made in parliament will affect everyone no matter where you live. MMPR incorporates both systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom