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 .
stockhausen said:
It is a distraction designed to prove that we should all be entirely happy with the FPTP system - the sort of trick used all the time by snake oil salesmen ;)
Click to expand...

Or alternatively, a realistic look at what the various parties were offering, and what choices are open to Clegg...
 
robgmun said:
I have new found respect fot you mate. Before the election i pegged you as "anything but tories" ranter like some people i can mention here. But you are coming across a lot more reasonable and thoughtful since. And i have been agreeing with a lot of your comments recently. I apologise for getting the wrong end of the sick over you
Click to expand...

That's kind of you to say. Sometimes I can be a grumpy arse, and I don't always express myself very well - don't feel too bad ;)
 
Dolph said:
Labour did worse in this election than the Tories did in 1997, and yet have come out much stronger. Is that not a system in need of reform even in the absence of a move to PR?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Even the Tories fiddling at the edges plans would be better than nothing.
 
Dolph said:
Or alternatively, a realistic look at what the various parties were offering, and what choices are open to Clegg...
Click to expand...

The country is close to an economic crisis and people are arguing with a minor party about a new voting system.

Something is clearly wrong :(
 
Dolph said:
It's less proportional when you consider first choice votes, which should be the ones that matter.

That you might end up with a candidate you can tolerate does not mean you end up with anything approaching what you wanted.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a system which is flawed, much for the reasons you mention.

It has no distinction between someone who'd be more than happy with either candidate 1, or 2, and someone else who's strongly in favour of candidate 1, but would reluctantly tolerate the other candidates.

But it's not 'inherently' less proportional, which is the point I was making.

Dolph said:
I agree, that's why I support AMS (which isn't currently supported by any party despite Labour using it for the scottish parliament).
Click to expand...

I'm of much the same opinion.
 
With this coalition government is it likely we will have another general election in 12 months time? I heard this on the radio Friday morning.
 
anticonscience said:
With this coalition government is it likely we will have another general election in 12 months time? I heard this on the radio Friday morning.
Click to expand...

Depends, Cameron may offer a fixed longer term in exchange for support and a program of policies.

A quick election is more likely if the Tories go as a minority government.
 
We have had 4 days of uncertainty with a hung parliament and the Lib Dems and Conservatives talking despite the talks apparently being cordial.

Under PR, how long would it take to thrash out a deal between more than two parties ?

It makes me think that PR may not the saviour of British politics and the electoral system that some believe it to be.
 
In my dream world, the libdems and tories would create a coalition, and pass policies from each party that I like.

Realistically, I'm just hoping for the coalition, given that I am half tory half libdem in my views.
 
Someone's been busy:

6a00d83451586c69e20133ed6fafd5970b-400wi
 
#
From BBC:

BREAKING NEWS

I can reveal that the Liberal Democrat negotiating team met over the weekend not just with the Tories but, in secret, with a team from Labour consisting of Peter Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Andrew Adonis, says the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson. So far, I can get no official comment from either party about what was discussed.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
We have had 4 days of uncertainty with a hung parliament and the Lib Dems and Conservatives talking despite the talks apparently being cordial.

Under PR, how long would it take to thrash out a deal between more than two parties ?

It makes me think that PR may not the saviour of British politics and the electoral system that some believe it to be.
Click to expand...

Why would it take any longer or shorter to thrash out a deal between two parties under PR?

The thing is, our electoral system is designed to avoid hung parliaments - we haven't had one for 35 years, so it's natural that the parties won't be skilled at alliance forming. If they had more practice, they'd be better at it. I'd also speculate that under a PR system we'd end up with more significantly sized political parties, so there'd be more choice for forming a government under PR than at the moment where the third placed party will always be king-maker.
 
Evangelion said:
That's what we use in Australia: dual AV/PR. We haven't had a hung parliament since 1940.

:)
Click to expand...

Across two houses? You'd have to abolish the parliament act for a start in the UK and would dramatically alter the function of the HoL.

Might work though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom