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 .
"andy" said:
theres no way clegg will deal. hes got another round in him. him and mandelson and bannanaman taking out the blues
Click to expand...

It's interesting isn't it.

They'll get shafted by the tories if they deal, and it'll probably decimate their support. You'd think that if people wanted a tory govt, more people would have voted for them.

And they can't really get in bed with Labour either, being the out-going party that the voters are abandoning in droves.

I really feel sorry for the Lib Dems atm. The only way they seem to be able to come away from this intact is by not making a coalition with either, and instead making deals behind closed doors, getting something in exchange for not voting a minority tory govt out of power, if that's even possible?

Makes me wish I knew more about the whole thing; it's fascinating.
 
Captain_Slick said:
Since forever?

If I remember rightly, yesterday we voted nationally to elect MPs nationally to a parliament to decide nationally on matters than affect everyone nationally.

A general election is a national vote. Council (Local) elections are the local vote.
Click to expand...

The other way to put it is you vote for your local MP to represent your local area.

We have never vote for the PM, your MP's job is to reflect the voice of you and those in your area.

The Polling ticket doesn't have the name for David Cameron or Gordon Brown, it has your local MP candidates on it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The other way to put it is you vote for your local MP to represent your local area.

We have never vote for the PM, your MP's job is to reflect the voice of you and those in your area.

The Polling ticket doesn't have the name for David Cameron or Gordon Brown, it has your local MP candidates on it.
Click to expand...

That's really neither here nor there. You're voting for someone to represent you at a national level. That sounds like a national election to me.

Whereas in the local elections, you're voting for someone to represent you in your council/unitary authority/whatever. To represent you at a local level.
 
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...
It's a fair point, but the only reason we vote locally is precisely because of our voting system. If we had a proportional system, we would be voting nationally. I can't see how it's fair that the Labour party received six per cent more of the vote than the Liberal Democrats, yet holds five times as many seats.
 
naffa said:
It's a fair point, but the only reason we vote locally is precisely because of our voting system. If we had a proportional system, we would be voting nationally. I can't see it's fair that the Labour party received six per cent more of the vote than the Liberal Democrats, yet holds five times as many seats.
Click to expand...

Nor that the Conservatives recieved 36% of the vote and hold almost half of the seats. It's preposterous.
 
Captain_Slick said:
That's really neither here nor there. You're voting for someone to represent you at a national level. That sounds like a national election to me.

Whereas in the local elections, you're voting for someone to represent you in your council/unitary authority/whatever. To represent you at a local level.
Click to expand...

no no no....the election is taking place at a national level, as it is happening all over the country. But we don't vote for a person that govern nationally. That single MP has no power at a national level on his own.

The US has a national election, as they can vote for the President directly on the ballot paper, we only have our local MP on the ballot paper.
 
Raymond Lin said:
no no no....the election is taking place at a national level, as it is happening all over the country. But we don't vote for a person that govern nationally. That single MP has no power at a national level on his own.

The US has a national election, as they can vote for the President directly on the ballot paper, we only have our local MP on the ballot paper.
Click to expand...

You're really picking straws. We vote for our local MP largely because of their party allegiance and who you want to be PM. Their character as an MP may come into it, but let's be honest.

We're voting for the PM through our MPs. The ballot paper might as well just have the party leaders name on it instead.
 
Captain_Slick said:
You're really picking straws. We vote for our local MP largely because of their party allegiance and who you want to be PM. Their character as an MP may come into it, but let's be honest.

We're voting for the PM through our MPs. The ballot paper might as well just have the party leaders name on it instead.
Click to expand...

That's your own opinion.

Did you actually go to any talks or meeting by your local MP? They go on about how they can represent your area, none of them sell the party at a national level, and none of them certainly go on about Gordon Brown or David Cameron.

If take your idea of voting and apply to everyone, then the independents will have no chance and might as well go home as do you see them ever on national TV? and how did the Green Party take Brighton? Do you think they voted for the Green Party to be in No.10???
 
Hatter The Mad said:
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.
Click to expand...
How would it mean one vote actually equalling one vote any more than with different sized constituencies? It's only when you'd look at the national picture that the proportion of the vote would start to align more closely to the number of seats, but it wouldn't be a certainty (they'd still be potential for a 50% of the vote 0 seats scenario).
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
That's your own opinion.

Did you actually go to any talks or meeting by your local MP?
Click to expand...

No, and neither did the majority of the UK electorate. That's the way things are.

I live in a safe Labour seat anyway so my vote made very little difference. PR would change that.

It's not my idea of voting, I'm just pointing out the state of play in our country at the moment - I'm not saying I agree with it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
That's your own opinion.

Did you actually go to any talks or meeting by your local MP? They go on about how they can represent your area, none of them sell the party at a national level, and none of them certainly go on about Gordon Brown or David Cameron.

If take your idea of voting and apply to everyone, then the independents will have no chance and might as well go home as do you see them ever on national TV? and how did the Green Party take Brighton? Do you think they voted for the Green Party to be in No.10???
Click to expand...

You're being incredibly disingenuous. Everyone knows the effect that voting for local MPs has at the national level. It's ridiculous to the max to say we're not voting for who will form the government.
 
gambitt said:
Helps with your moaning.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes it does. Thanks. If more people like me were moaning right now, we might actually end up with something resembling a democracy in the country - something that we've never had.

EDIT: I'm not moaning about Labour losing. I was agreeing with the previous poster that it was ridiculous for the two parties to recieve the number of seats that they did.
 
Captain_Slick said:
No, and neither did the majority of the UK electorate. That's the way things are.

I live in a safe Labour seat anyway so my vote made very little difference. PR would change that.

It's not my idea of voting, I'm just pointing out the state of play in our country at the moment - I'm not saying I agree with it.
Click to expand...

Just because thats the way you think and the way you think what OTHER people MIGHT think (looks who is clutching straws???? how vague is that!?!), it doesn't change the fact that you always vote for your LOCAL MP, not David Cameron.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Just because thats the way you think and the way you think what OTHER people MIGHT think (looks who is clutching straws???? how vague is that!?!), it doesn't change the fact that you always vote for your LOCAL MP, not David Cameron.
Click to expand...

It's not the way I think at all. Are you honestly suggesting that the majority of voters in this country actually have any idea who their local MP is? Don't be daft, half of them probably don't even know who's running their council!

I never said that we weren't voting for our local MP. I said we were voting for our local MP in place of who we wanted to be PM. Which is what the majority of voters do.
 
Captain_Slick said:
Yes, yes it does. Thanks. If more people like me were moaning right now, we might actually end up with something resembling a democracy in the country - something that we've never had.

EDIT: I'm not moaning about Labour losing. I was agreeing with the previous poster that it was ridiculous for the two parties to recieve the number of seats that they did.
Click to expand...

People aren't interested in fairness - unless an unfair system is disadvantageous for them.

If FPTP gets a tory govt elected, tories won't complain or rally for change. And neither would labour in that position.

People are more than willing to accept unfair systems if it puts them on top.

Just look at our country. We can only live this well because people in other countries work for $3 a month. Do I hear people complaining about 3rd world wages? No, because it benefits them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom