Bollitics: The General Election 2010 Exit Poll

[Awol]

So as we have quite a few on here advocating a PR voting system, let's look at how that would have panned out at this election if it had been in place:

Conservative 36.1% = 235 seats

Labour 29.0% = 188 seats

Liberal Democrat 23.0% = 149 seats

UKIP 3.1% = 20 seats

BNP 1.9% = 12 seats

Scottish National 1.7% = 12 seats

Others 5.1% = 33 seats

I don't really see how you could form a workable Government from those numbers, would any PR fans like to elaborate on how anything would ever get done?

[Davkaus]

I suspect things would get done by the parties having proper debates and most of the MPs agreeing on something, rather than the biggest party using their unrepresentative majority and the fear of the party whip to force through unscrutinised legislation.

You'd think nothing ever gets done in Germany or Japan.

[thetrees]

^ The Trees is advocating a "fairer" system. You however seem to want to punish people for daring to do well. The politics of envy, aka, socialism (or the equal sharing of misery).

Total, complete and absolute rubbish! I was lucky enough to be educated at what is generally regarded as the best school in Birmingham and one of the best in the country. I worked damned hard to get into the school and continued to work damned hard and achieved excellent academic and professional qualifications. However, I appreciate that the vast majority of people never had the same opportunities as myself and therefore I think I have a moral duty to put back more into society so that more people can have similar opportunities to those which I enjoyed.

Both of your attitudes reek of the Tory "me, me, me, I am better than you because I get paid more money" attitude that I find abhorrent. I would actually benefit from the Tory's (imo) immoral Inheritance Tax policies to the tune of £20-30k but just because I would benefit does not make it right. There are plenty of people who have not had the same opportunities as me who could benefit from that money more than me. I know this is an alien concept to many Tory voters but it is called having a social conscience. Making people who work just as hard as you, but who have not had the same opportunities, pay a substantially higher proportion of their wages is totally immoral imo. Your claims that the 50% tax is discriminatory and that it is fair to tax the low paid at a much higher proportionate rate would be truly laughable if they were not so cruel. Rather than my views being about the politics of envy, which is quite obviously total nonsense, it is actually about your views and those of the Trees being about the politics of greed and selfishness. I just hope that Nick Clegg manages to help to dilute such selfish attitudes at least a little.

I could expand on my proposal, which someone who was actually interested in another's point of view might actually take in, but such ignorant and uninformed bile really does not warrant anything further.

[drat01]

I don't really see how you could form a workable Government from those numbers, would any PR fans like to elaborate on how anything would ever get done?

You mean like in lots of other countries worldwide ? PR is fair - FPTP is not

This is something I have said for years!

Algeria Party list

Angola Party list

Australia For Senate only, Single Transferable Vote

Austria Party list

Argentina Party list

Aruba Party List

Belgium Party list

Bolivia Mixed Member Majoritarian

Brazil Party list

Bulgaria Party list

Burkina Faso Party list

Burundi Party list

Cambodia Party list

Cape Verde Party list

Colombia Party list

Costa Rica Party list

Croatia Party list

Cyprus Party list

Czech Republic Party list

Democratic Republic of the Congo Mixed member proportional

Denmark Party list

Dominican Republic Party list

Equatorial Guinea Party list

Estonia Party list

Finland Party list

Germany Mixed member proportional

Greece Party list (with plurality bonus)

Guinea-Bissau Party list

Guyana Party list

Hungary Mixed Member Majoritarian

Iceland Party list

India For Upper House (Rajya Sabha) only, Single Transferable Vote by State Legislatures

Indonesia Party list

Iraq Party list

Ireland Single Transferable Vote

Israel Party list

Italy Party list (with plurality bonus for coalitions)

Japan Mixed Member Majoritarian

Latvia Party list

Lesotho Mixed Member Majoritarian

Liberia Party list

Liechtenstein Party list

Luxembourg Party list

Malta Single Transferable Vote

Mexico Mixed Member Majoritarian

Moldova Party list

New Zealand Mixed Member Proportional

Namibia Party list

Netherlands Party list

Netherlands Antilles Party list

New Caledonia Party list

Nicaragua Party list

Northern Ireland Single Transferable Vote

Norway Party list

Paraguay Party list

Peru Party list

Poland Party list

Portugal Party list

Romania Party list

Russia Party list

San Marino Party list

Sao Tome and Principe Party list

Scotland Additional Member System

Slovakia Party list

Slovenia Party list

South Africa Party list

South Korea Party list

Spain Party list

Sri Lanka Party list

Suriname Party list

Sweden Party list

Switzerland Party list

Taiwan Party list

Thailand Mixed Member Majoritarian

Turkey Party list

Ukraine Party list

Uruguay Party list

Venezuela Party list

Wallis and Futuna Party list

[drat01]

The tory supporters must be well **** off. If they can't get an overall majority now then its doubtful they ever will again.

Actually no, if the Tories can form a government you can bet they'll iron out the inbalance and electoral advantage Labour have built into the current boundary set up, therby getting a good majority when this thing is re-run later in the year.

Have a look at the election map fella, most of it is blue...

Just because the map is blue means **** all Jon and you know it. The key is still the number of votes. Even the BBC said the same because of the imbalance on area of rural and inner city constituencies.

I love the fact that one one hand you are claiming (wrongly) some wrong doing about boundaries and then on the other hand welcoming the same principle from a potential Tory gvmt - what hypocrisy.

The Tory party failed big style to win an overall majority, something just a few weeks back you and others were happy to talk about based on the polls. Cameron failed, Ashcroft knows it, the people know it. He had a remit to get a Tory gvmt back into power and even now he is struggling to do that.

[bickster]

the last lot of boundary changes i.e. when Labour were in power and were utilised for the first time this week favoured the Conservative Party, it removed a few borough constituencies and added a few more county constituencies. Borough ones are entirely urban, county are rural or part rural). The Conservatives traditionally do better in the county seats. Labour in the boroughs. The Boundary Commission did this to reflect the numbers of people moving from urban areas to rural. The boundary changes that happened ten years previously were started when the Conservatives were in power, it takes a lot more than three years to do the boundary changes. So the idea that Labour did something to the boundaries in their favour is quite quite wrong

[Awol]

The tory supporters must be well **** off. If they can't get an overall majority now then its doubtful they ever will again.

Actually no, if the Tories can form a government you can bet they'll iron out the inbalance and electoral advantage Labour have built into the current boundary set up, therby getting a good majority when this thing is re-run later in the year.

Have a look at the election map fella, most of it is blue...

Just because the map is blue means **** all Jon and you know it. The key is still the number of votes. Even the BBC said the same because of the imbalance on area of rural and inner city constituencies.

Well if it's on number of votes then the Tories beat Labour by two million. That's 2,000,000 votes.

I love the fact that one one hand you are claiming (wrongly) some wrong doing about boundaries and then on the other hand welcoming the same principle from a potential Tory gvmt - what hypocrisy.

No I'm suggesting that the Tories will, if given the chance, make the constituencies the same size and thereby remove Labour's inbuilt electoral advantage. If they can then even a replica of this weeks voting would give them a majority. I don't see how trying to make something fair (and we know how much Labour like banging on about fairness) is hypocrisy, surely trying to perpetuate an unfair balance while preaching fairness is hypocrisy?

The Tory party failed big style to win an overall majority, something just a few weeks back you and others were happy to talk about based on the polls. Cameron failed, Ashcroft knows it, the people know it. He had a remit to get a Tory gvmt back into power and even now he is struggling to do that.

No they didn't get a majority - see above - but they beat Labour both in terms of numbers of seats and the majority of the vote. I'm guessing you feel that on that basis Labour should try to hang on though, right?

[Awol]

I don't really see how you could form a workable Government from those numbers, would any PR fans like to elaborate on how anything would ever get done?

You mean like in lots of other countries worldwide ? PR is fair - FPTP is not

This is something I have said for years!

Fair enough then, but I hope there won't be too much wailing when BNP MP's start apppearing on Parliamentary Committee's etc and become an undeniably mainstream political presence. PR will let fascists into UK politics and that's not something I want to see - ever.

[bickster]

Why will pr let in fascists? It all depends on the type of pr for starters of which there are many. Calling for electoral reform doesn't mean we adopt the form of pr you don't seem to like

The conservative idea of equal sized constituencies is a nonsense btw, its simply neither practical or logical

[Morkery]

For those who wanted a fairer society here is your new PM and wife:

(Cut and paste from wiki)

"The son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron and his wife Mary Fleur Mount (daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet),[4] David Cameron was born in London, and raised at Peasemore in Berkshire

The school was built by his great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[8] who had made a fortune in the grain business in Chicago and had returned to Scotland in the 1880s

Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV (great x 5 grandfather) and his mistress Dorothea Jordan (and thus 5th cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II)"

Mr Cameron's wife:

"Born in London, she is the eldest daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, 8th Baronet, a landowner and three times a descendant from King Charles II of England"

Perhaps Downing street can be sold off and old Dave can lodge with Queeny.

[Demitri_C]

And here we have a winner! This has to be the biggest load of claptrap I have ever read on here...which is saying something! This is exactly why I did not vote Tory!!

thats a great argument back :?

[jonno_2004]

For those who wanted a fairer society here is your new PM and wife:

(Cut and paste from wiki)

"The son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron and his wife Mary Fleur Mount (daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet),[4] David Cameron was born in London, and raised at Peasemore in Berkshire

The school was built by his great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[8] who had made a fortune in the grain business in Chicago and had returned to Scotland in the 1880s

Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV (great x 5 grandfather) and his mistress Dorothea Jordan (and thus 5th cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II)"

Mr Cameron's wife:

"Born in London, she is the eldest daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, 8th Baronet, a landowner and three times a descendant from King Charles II of England"

Perhaps Downing street can be sold off and old Dave can lodge with Queeny.

What does that have to do with how he'll run the country though? Clegg has come from a very privileged background, which seems to be conveniently forgotten by Lib Dems who slate Cameron for being 'posh'.

Personally I don't give a toss what the background of whoever runs the country is, as long as they do a good job I'm not going to stereotype them before they've even had a go.

[Awol]

Why will pr let in fascists? It all depends on the type of pr for starters of which there are many. Calling for electoral reform doesn't mean we adopt the form of pr you don't seem to like

I was just saying that if seats were divided purely according to share of the vote, that would have given the BNP 12 MP's this time around. I don't see how any form of PR can avoid that or a similar situation to be honest, unless it ceased to be PR.

Now the AV system is one I think is sensible and fair.

[El Zen]

Why will pr let in fascists?

It won't. I hate them with a passion, but the BNP aren't really fascist.

That said, even if I'm strongly in favour of PR in Britain I'd be surprised if PR electoral reform wouldn't open the doors to the BNP. Electoral system is one of the few relevant variables where Britain differs from other countries where BNP's sister parties have succeeded (eg Le Pen in France).

[Guest Ricardomeister]

And here we have a winner! This has to be the biggest load of claptrap I have ever read on here...which is saying something! This is exactly why I did not vote Tory!!

thats a great argument back :?

I have already given my reasons in full as to why I think the 50% tax is fair and raising the basic rate to 25% is unfair so I am not going to type it all out again! What he said was utter claptrap and factually inaccurate imo and I stand by that 100%.

If people think that in our current financial situation that it is fairer that huge numbers of hard-working people on, for example, £20k pa who in all likelihood are struggling to pay their mortgage/rent and heating bills etc suffer a large tax rise than making a few privileged people on, for example, £200k pay an extra £5k a year then that is a very sad indictment on our society imo.

But to say the 50% tax is discriminatory and an increase in the basic rate tax to 25% is ludicrous, cruel and unjustifiable imo.

[PauloBarnesi]

For those who wanted a fairer society here is your new PM and wife:

(Cut and paste from wiki)

"The son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron and his wife Mary Fleur Mount (daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet),[4] David Cameron was born in London, and raised at Peasemore in Berkshire

The school was built by his great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[8] who had made a fortune in the grain business in Chicago and had returned to Scotland in the 1880s

Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV (great x 5 grandfather) and his mistress Dorothea Jordan (and thus 5th cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II)"

Mr Cameron's wife:

"Born in London, she is the eldest daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, 8th Baronet, a landowner and three times a descendant from King Charles II of England"

Perhaps Downing street can be sold off and old Dave can lodge with Queeny.

I shrug my shoulder and suggest that all parties have people like this and has always been the case. Look at Harriet Harman; she’s got enough aristo relatives. And she went to a more selective private school than Cameron or perhaps even Clegg. And she’s sending her son to a selective grammar school (wasn’t that something the Labour party promised to get rid of?)... One could go on and on and on, finding that a huge number of politicians of all colours come from privileged backgrounds with or without titles. Maybe we should stop with all this and just judge them on whether they are any good or not?

[Condimentalist]

Why will pr let in fascists? It all depends on the type of pr for starters of which there are many. Calling for electoral reform doesn't mean we adopt the form of pr you don't seem to like

I was just saying that if seats were divided purely according to share of the vote, that would have given the BNP 12 MP's this time around. I don't see how any form of PR can avoid that or a similar situation to be honest, unless it ceased to be PR.

Now the AV system is one I think is sensible and fair.

But AV wouldn't really change anything. PR would completely change the political culture of this country, which is obviously why a lot of people are afraid of it, but given that the the political culture in this country is utterly reprehensible at the moment then I'm all for it.

You say that PR would result in BNP MPs and the like, but if we were to adopt the STV form of PR then they would struggle to pick up most peoples preference votes, since most people would rank the BNP as their last choice of party. Most systems of AMS have quotas ie. you need a certain proportion of the national vote in order to get seats.

I don't buy the argument I'm afraid. The glaring inconsistency is that a party that polls 24% of the national vote can end up with 8% of the seats.

[Gringo]

For those who wanted a fairer society here is your new PM and wife:

(Cut and paste from wiki)

"The son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron and his wife Mary Fleur Mount (daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet),[4] David Cameron was born in London, and raised at Peasemore in Berkshire

The school was built by his great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[8] who had made a fortune in the grain business in Chicago and had returned to Scotland in the 1880s

Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV (great x 5 grandfather) and his mistress Dorothea Jordan (and thus 5th cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II)"

Mr Cameron's wife:

"Born in London, she is the eldest daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, 8th Baronet, a landowner and three times a descendant from King Charles II of England"

Perhaps Downing street can be sold off and old Dave can lodge with Queeny.

I shrug my shoulder and suggest that all parties have people like this and has always been the case. Look at Harriet Harman; she’s got enough aristo relatives. And she went to a more selective private school than Cameron or perhaps even Clegg. And she’s sending her son to a selective grammar school (wasn’t that something the Labour party promised to get rid of?)... One could go on and on and on, finding that a huge number of politicians of all colours come from privileged backgrounds with or without titles. Maybe we should stop with all this and just judge them on whether they are any good or not?

I guess that would be nice, but they don't judge themselves on how good they are, otherwise you wouldn't have harriet's husband parachuted into a nice safe seat (against the local party's wishes) or Dave's mate Jo Cash parachuted into a nice safe seat (against the local party's wishes). They operate a cozy clubs based on patronage and are dismissive of the wishes and concerns of the little people and so deserve all the barbs they receive.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

^ The Trees is advocating a "fairer" system. You however seem to want to punish people for daring to do well. The politics of envy, aka, socialism (or the equal sharing of misery).

Total, complete and absolute rubbish! I was lucky enough to be educated at what is generally regarded as the best school in Birmingham and one of the best in the country. I worked damned hard to get into the school and continued to work damned hard and achieved excellent academic and professional qualifications. However, I appreciate that the vast majority of people never had the same opportunities as myself and therefore I think I have a moral duty to put back more into society so that more people can have similar opportunities to those which I enjoyed.

Both of your attitudes reek of the Tory "me, me, me, I am better than you because I get paid more money" attitude that I find abhorrent. I would actually benefit from the Tory's (imo) immoral Inheritance Tax policies to the tune of £20-30k but just because I would benefit does not make it right. There are plenty of people who have not had the same opportunities as me who could benefit from that money more than me. I know this is an alien concept to many Tory voters but it is called having a social conscience. Making people who work just as hard as you, but who have not had the same opportunities, pay a substantially higher proportion of their wages is totally immoral imo. Your claims that the 50% tax is discriminatory and that it is fair to tax the low paid at a much higher proportionate rate would be truly laughable if they were not so cruel. Rather than my views being about the politics of envy, which is quite obviously total nonsense, it is actually about your views and those of the Trees being about the politics of greed and selfishness. I just hope that Nick Clegg manages to help to dilute such selfish attitudes at least a little.

I could expand on my proposal, which someone who was actually interested in another's point of view might actually take in, but such ignorant and uninformed bile really does not warrant anything further.

Nothing ignorant or uniformed in there I think you will find! I am always prepared to listen to other people's views but when they are based on selfishness, greed and unfairness then I will reserve the right to show these views up for what they are.

Anyone who thinks that burdening huge numbers of people who are struggling to pay for the basics with a significant increase in tax is fairer than making a few privileged people miss out on their 4th foreign holiday of the year is the ignorant and uninformed one imo.

Your views are, imo of course, a very sad indictment of some people in our society.

[Awol]

Ricardomeister,

Question, how much money do you think the 50% tax bracket raises for the Exchequer? Once you've found that out I'd hope that such a learned fellow as yourself will conclude that it is actually a punitive measure leading to little or no material benefit.

Of course you could just continue insulting everyone who has a different opinion to yours, but that isn't very constructive.