Poll: The official I voted/election results thread

Who did you vote for?

  • Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

    Votes: 4 0.3%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 518 39.5%

  • Democratic Unionist Party

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 65 5.0%

  • Labour

    Votes: 241 18.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 99 7.5%

  • Didn't vote / spoiled ballot

    Votes: 136 10.4%

  • Other party

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Respect Party

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • SNP

    Votes: 67 5.1%

  • Social Democratic and Labour Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 4 0.3%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 158 12.0%
  • Total voters
    1,313
"Protesters waved banners with anti-Tory slogans and placards calling for proportional representation as police in riot gear looked on."

I don't understand, were they all UKIP voters because they are the only party that would have truly benefited from PR in this election?
 
It's suppressed to stop it turning into a full scale riot (as it may inform more people [if people are still struggling to follow]) and is not a cover up by 'The state' (request to the free media). It's not too dissimilar from high school shootings.
 
Jono8 said:
"Protesters waved banners with anti-Tory slogans and placards calling for proportional representation as police in riot gear looked on."

I don't understand, were they all UKIP voters because they are the only party that would have truly benefited from PR in this election?
Click to expand...

It's almost as if they have no idea what they are ranting about..
 
Jono8 said:
"Protesters waved banners with anti-Tory slogans and placards calling for proportional representation as police in riot gear looked on."

I don't understand, were they all UKIP voters because they are the only party that would have truly benefited from PR in this election?
Click to expand...

It's almost like you don't have to directly benefit from something to be in favour of it.
 
PermaBanned said:
It's almost like you don't have to directly benefit from something to be in favour of it.
Click to expand...

or much more likley have not actualy boithered to look into to realise you wouldnt have benfiited from it dfespite you assuming you would have.


you really think these exaCT SMAE PEOPLE WOULDNT HAVE BEEN OUT THERE IF THERE HAD BEEN A BUNCH MORE UKIP MPS IN?

mehhit capslock cba
 
Muffin` said:
It's suppressed to stop it turning into a full scale riot (as it may inform more people [if people are still struggling to follow]) and is not a cover up by 'The state' (request to the free media). It's not too dissimilar from high school shootings.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been suppressed though!
 
PermaBanned said:
It's almost like you don't have to directly benefit from something to be in favour of it.
Click to expand...

:confused: But this is clearly a knee jerk reaction to this election.

PR probably would have seen a Conservative and UKIP coalition, which probably would have made my Facebook feed explode in a cloud of liberal butt hurt.

Do you really think they would not be protesting if UKIP were part of our government and had 80+ seats!?
 
The socialists are as unhappy with Labour as with the Conservatives. At least the Greens would have many more MPs under PR.
 
Jono8 said:
:confused: But this is clearly a knee jerk reaction to this election.

PR probably would have seen a Conservative and UKIP coalition, which probably would have made my Facebook feed explode in a cloud of liberal butt hurt.

Do you really think they would not be protesting if UKIP were part of our government and had 80+ seats!?
Click to expand...

Even if you don't support UKIP, and lord knows i certainly don't, you have to admit that a system wherin a party can get 12.6% of the vote and get 0.1538% of the representation is broken.
 
Vertigo1 said:
The thing is, with our flawed FPTP system, the 2010 result was the best the LibDems were ever likely to achieve...

Is this all we can ever hope for? That any party other than Labour or the Conservatives is consigned to aspiring solely to gain enough seats to form a coalition with one of the main parties for which they'll sacrifice everything come the next election? Certainly seems that way to me.

...

We need change badly but I really don't see how it's ever going to happen.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if you know this already but the Liberal party had a substantial (40-60%) amount of the vote share for about a century (1820-1920) before the emergence of the Labour party as a dominant force. Major changes can happen, but only when society is right to nurture them.

Vertigo1 said:
And yet a huge number of business leaders supported the Tories' economic plan and wanted them back in power.

I don't know much about economics but I'm far more inclined to agree with the opinion of those running businesses, employing people and contributing to the economy than some random economists spouting theory.

I don't believe, as Labour seem to, that you can just spend your way out of trouble. There are times when you have to invest to recoup and spur growth but there are also times when you simply have to rein it back in and clear some of the debt.
Click to expand...

You're wrong to place so much trust in businesspeople when it comes to macroeconomic issues. Ask them if conditions are good for businesses sure, but if you want any macroeconomic advice you really need to be asking an economist, there's hardly any overlap.

I'm not an economist either but have done a lot of reading this year, and you're right, governments need to stimulate when demand is weak and save when times are good. The thing is, when the Tories took over demand was incredibly weak and bond rates very low, so the very best thing would have been to open the purse strings and stimulate the economy, e.g. by investing in infrastructure projects. Instead they decided to cut public spending at the very moment it was most needed. After a year they "paused" austerity, and growth briefly appeared, before things flatlined again. If you compare the figures for the USA (which had a more severe crash), Germany, Australia, Japan, etc. you'll find they all bounced back and exceeded earlier records, whereas we're still crawling along at pre-crash levels.

And finally if you're thinking about that signed letter PR stunt, many of the signatories were honoured by or donors to the Conservatives. They also represented an insignificantly small proportion of business owners.
 
PermaBanned said:
Even if you don't support UKIP, and lord knows i certainly don't, you have to admit that a system wherin a party can get 12.6% of the vote and get 0.1538% of the representation is broken.
Click to expand...

Not really. UKIP are simply not popular enough in any one area (except one) to have proper representation in parliament. In the majority of areas, the majority of people want a conservative MP to represent them in parliament.
 
Jono8 said:
Not really. UKIP are simply not popular enough in any one area (except one) to have proper representation in parliament. In the majority of areas, the majority of people want a conservative MP to represent them in parliament.
Click to expand...

Err, no, not even nearly that. Show me one single constituency where the conservative candidate got a majority of the vote.
 
Moses said:
Why's that? He led the reform of education which achieved things everyone agreed on - it's not like Labour were promising to overturn his changes, were they? There's a reason for that... Westminster in general knew the changes were necessary...
Click to expand...

The man is an absolute joke, and nobody in the education field so much as listened to him never mind respected him. He lives in his own little world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom