The real reason David Cameron is sitting on a Commons majority

A new study shows that the most disproportionate result in UK history cheated millions of voters out of representation

Before we start to forget what happened at the election, we ought to reflect on the most gobsmacking aspect of the result. I do not mean that the Tories won. I mean how they won. Some have attributed their shock majority to the dark arts of Lynton Crosby. Others to the lack of appeal of Ed Miliband. Some opine that the Tory win demonstrates that the English are an essentially conservative people. Others think Labour’s failure is a symptom of a worldwide crisis in social democracy. On they go, the theories. I have barely touched on the many interesting explanations for what happened. And they are all wrong. For sure, they may be among the factors that contributed to what happened on 7 May, but they are all insignificant compared with the main explanation for why David Cameron is at Number 10 enthroned atop a Conservative parliamentary majority.

There is a big, basic and brute reason why we have just heard a Tory Queen’s speech, will soon be listening to a Tory budget and have five years or so of Tory law-making ahead of us. It is so bloody obvious that no one is talking about it – it is the electoral system.

By no normal definition of the word popular were the Conservatives popular at the election. They received 36.9% of the vote. By no normal definition of the word mandate did they get the endorsement of the electorate to fully implement their manifesto. Nearly two-thirds of voters did not put their cross in the Tory box. Factor in the turn-out and the Conservatives secured the backing of less than a quarter of the registered electorate. It is first past the post that alchemises a minority vote share into more than half of the seats in the House of Commons, every seat in the cabinet and the power to pursue an entirely Tory agenda for the next five years.

The other party greatly favoured by winner takes all were the Scottish Nationalists. Their hugely swollen contingent of MPs have announced their arrival at Westminster in noisy fashion. When not winding up Tory traditionalists by clapping in the chamber, they are battling with Labour for buttock space on the opposition benches. More seriously, the size of Nicola Sturgeon’s clan, now the third largest group in the Commons, will entitle them to lots of significant perks in the party pecking order. They will secure more debate days. They will have many more places on select committees, including some chairmanships. Their leader in the Commons, Angus Robertson, will get two guaranteed pops at David Cameron every prime minister’s questions. They will maximise the advantages of that position to claim that they alone speak for Scotland at Westminster. As you would, if you were them. It is first past the post that has awarded them all these privileges. Half of Scotland’s voters wanted to be represented by the SNP. They have now got 56 of its 59 MPs to give megaphonic expression to their views; 50% of Scots did not want to send a Nationalist MP to Westminster. That half of the nation is represented by just three MPs, one each for Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems, which may go down to just two if Alistair Carmichael is unseated by a recall byelection.

Compare and contrast the jubilantly numerous Nationalists now swarming around the Palace of Westminster with the miserable fate of the shrivelled band of Lib Dems. They received about a million more votes than the SNP, but while the Nationalists celebrate, the Lib Dems are wearing mourning weed. All their big names defenestrated bar Nick Clegg and just seven other MPs huddling together for warmth. This has prompted some to recommend that they might as well wind up as a party and find something more rewarding to do with their lives. That suggestion is unfair not just to the important liberal tradition in British politics, but also to the 2,415,862 people who voted for the Lib Dems on 7 May. They must have thought there was a continuing purpose for the party. If seats were allocated in proportion to votes, they would have a respectable 51 MPs to represent them and no one would be telling the Lib Dems to shut up shop.

For the electoral system has more than one distorting effect. Having turned votes into seats in a wildly disproportionate way, it then reinforces that by skewing the shape of political argument in the years afterwards. During the coalition period, producers of TV and radio discussion programmes would want to have a Lib Dem on the panel just about every week. In the years to come, I suspect sightings of Lib Dems on programmes such as Question Time will be much rarer and there will be a lot more MPs from the SNP sitting around David Dimbleby’s table. The Lib Dems beat the SNP in votes, but because of the relative weight of their MPs, there will be much more amplification of nationalist views in the media than there will be of liberal views.

The Greens were another victim. They quadrupled their support to a million plus, but still have just the one MP – Caroline Lucas – to speak for them in parliament. Compare that with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists, who may become important players when David Cameron’s majority is eroded by byelection losses. The DUP, like the SNP, are a beneficiary of the way in which first past the post rewards parties whose support is geographically concentrated. The Democratic Unionists received fewer than 190,000 votes, yet that yielded them eight MPs.

The people worst treated by the electoral system were those who voted for Ukip. There were approaching 4 million of them, making them third in share. For all those votes, they were rewarded with just the one MP, Douglas Carswell. He’s an interesting chap with some distinctive positions that are not, I suspect, wholly representative of the views of all Ukip voters. To them, this must seem not just grossly unfair, but utterly undemocratic. This has to be bad for the reputation of Westminster among those already most alienated from it. If you were a Ukip voter, you probably went into a polling station already thinking that politics is a rotten establishment racket. Now you must be absolutely sure it is.

The flaws of first past the post, especially when used in a multi-party political climate for which it was never designed, are well known. What’s special about this election is just how stark they have become. The Electoral Reform Society will tomorrow publish a study that marshals the evidence to argue that this was the most disproportionate result in British election history. It also makes a compelling case that the electoral system is now working to cleave an already fractious kingdom by artificially exaggerating our regional and national divides. Look at one of those maps with constituencies coloured to show the party of the MP. The sea of blue in the home counties leads you to think that there are virtually no Labour voters there when, in fact, there are quite a lot. The sea of red in the big cities of the north suggests that there are no Tory voters there when, in fact, there are quite a lot. Looking at the map you’d think there was barely anyone who wasn’t a Nationalist voter north of the Tweed when, in fact, half of Scotland voted for a unionist party. These many millions of voters have been cheated out of representation.

To an outside eye, this looks both absurd and outrageous. I was recently in conversation with some European diplomats. All of their countries used some form of more proportional voting. They expressed amazement that we still turn votes into power in a way that is so self-evidently unfair and some surprise that there was not a great popular outcry about it.

One reason that electoral reform has not gained enough traction in this country to force change is that the two biggest parties have never seen it to be in their interests to embrace the cause. This might begin to alter in the case of the Labour party. They now have to contemplate another five years in opposition, half a decade in which to reflect on their failure to do anything about first past the post when they were in government or to help the Lib Dems pursue reform in the last parliament. Labour is going to pay for it – literally so. The Tories intend to use the majority gifted to them by the electoral system to further entrench their advantage when it comes to money by making it harder for the trade unions to raise funds for Labour.

Some people do get cross about it. Shortly after the election, a petition was organised and 478,000 names signed the call for electoral reform. It was delivered to Number 10. Unfortunately for reformers, that is the one address in the UK least likely to be interested in changing the way we elect governments. David Cameron is the last person who is going to be interested in reforming a voting system that has just converted a minority of the vote into all the spoils of power. When he looks at first past the post, far from seeing a broken system, he sees one that has just worked perfectly for him.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/31/electoral-reform-general-election-results-2015-first-past-the-post

Always believed the proportional respresentation, even if it puts in more from parties I don't like. It is simply not right for such a large percentage of the population not to have a voice, and not much wonder that people decry democracy, when democracy isn't democratic.

the system is just wrong, it is that simple, how a group who got 3 times more than another group can have 55 less seats is ridiculous.
still wonder what happened to the 200 000 ballot papers that went missing..

This is what you call true sour grapes from the left, because I did not hear many of them moaning the last time they were in power based off the same system. In other words when the left are in power they are happy to claim victory and do so off this system. When they lose they bemoan the system. Neglecting the fact the nation did vote on this very voting system
Irony at its best.

Actually I've been supporting proportional representation for about 20 - 30 years Didge, and I still support it, even though it would give UKIP more votes. It's the only way the opinion of the electorate would actually show, and people could then vote for the party they wanted to and tactical voting would go out of the window.

Actual votes cast in the last election:

Tories 11,334,576, 36.9% +24 net change in seats.

Labour 9,347,304, 30.4% -26 net change in seats.

UKIP 3,881,099, 12.6% +1 net change in seats.

SNP 1,454,436, 4.7% +50 net change in seats.

LIBdems 2,415,862, 7.9% -49 net change in seats.

Greens got 3.8%, so about half the vote of the Lib Dems


Number of seats under proportional representation:

Cons 240

Labour 198

UKIP 82

Lib Dems 51

SNP 31

Greens 24

Now obviously that would not be a good result for what I think. It would however, be a good result for the British public and democracy, so I'll continue to support it.

All stats from:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/election-results-10-charts-that-show-how-britain-voted-10237410.html

Again sour grapes, I did not hear you once say Labour should not have their last victory based off this system.
It shows utter hypocrisy Sassy.You maybe saying it now because you do not accept democracy through the system we use only because the Tories won.It also shows that right wing support when you accumulate all RW parties up is over 50% of the vote. UKIP and Tories alone is 49.5%, add the DUP and you get 50.1% of which I can add more to this. What ever way you look at it, the Tories would have still had a majority Coalition with UKIP and are you saying you would prefer a Tory Ukip coalition over a Tory Government?


As I say sour grapes by the left.

What the fuck are you going on about.  Eilzel would probably remember me supporting it years ago when the Lib Dems proposed it.  The fact that this election has produced so many other parties, which isn't likely to change, has brought it to the fore again.

risingsun wrote:What the fuck are you going on about.  Eilzel would probably remember me supporting it years ago when the Lib Dems proposed it.  The fact that this election has produced so many other parties, which isn't likely to change, has brought it to the fore again.

No need to be rude, the fact is I have never heard you say Labour should not have been elected the last time they were in power. You may have supported change in the referendum, which funnily enough only came about when the Tories were inn power and not Labour, but I never heard you speak of this whenever Labour was in power. That is sour grapes.

So again I will ask, based off the results in the election, are you saying you would prefer a Tory UKIP coalition over a Tory Government? The only reason I believe the left now are starting to champion this, is because their chances of retaining a majority through this system has dramatically decreased after the loss of support in Scotland. So the article is very much sour grapes and completely wrong, even with the other voting system. The Tories would have had a commons majority anyway, through a RW coalition.

risingsun wrote:A new study shows that the most disproportionate result in UK history cheated millions of voters out of representation



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/31/electoral-reform-general-election-results-2015-first-past-the-post

Always believed the proportional respresentation, even if it puts in more from parties I don't like.  It is simply not right for such a large percentage of the population not to have a voice, and not much wonder that people decry democracy, when democracy isn't democratic.  

this shows rather well why each party got what in the way of seats


the snp did well because they only stood in 59 seats, approximately 1/12 of the other parties.

the greens did so badly because they managed only an average of 1800 or so votes per constituency.
losers can whine all they like about why and how it is not fair, but we use FPTP and while 63% may not have voted for the tories., 69% did not vote for labour, 87.5% did not vote ukip, 94% did not vote green and 95% did not vote SNP

the tories pulled almost 37%, had their been PR then next time it may well be a ukip tory coalition and that may well be the state of play for the conceivable future. those that did not vote, really did not care enough and should be automatically discounted from any discussion. eh only ones that could count are those that spoiled their ballots as they, at least, could be bothered to walk the short distance to the polling station.

Of course another reason for the unexpected win was the absolute terror of another labour administration having any say in running the country and the destruction that would entail.

Belatucadros wrote:Again sour grapes, I did not hear you once say Labour should not have their last victory based off this system.
It shows utter hypocrisy Sassy.You maybe saying it now because you do not accept democracy through the system we use only because the Tories won.It also shows that right wing support when you accumulate all RW parties up is over 50% of the vote. UKIP and Tories alone is 49.5%, add the DUP and you get 50.1% of which I can add more to this. What ever way you look at it, the Tories would have still had a majority Coalition with UKIP and are you saying you would prefer a Tory Ukip coalition over a Tory Government?


As I say sour grapes by the left.

yes its amazing how gung ho so many of the losing parties are now for change, especially as they have twigged they are out for generations.

well we had that debate 5 years ago and the voting public overwhelmingly rejected change

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:Again sour grapes, I did not hear you once say Labour should not have their last victory based off this system.
It shows utter hypocrisy Sassy.You maybe saying it now because you do not accept democracy through the system we use only because the Tories won.It also shows that right wing support when you accumulate all RW parties up is over 50% of the vote. UKIP and Tories alone is 49.5%, add the DUP and you get 50.1% of which I can add more to this. What ever way you look at it, the Tories would have still had a majority Coalition with UKIP and are you saying you would prefer a Tory Ukip coalition over a Tory Government?


As I say sour grapes by the left.

yes its amazing how gung ho so many of the losing parties are now for change, especially as they have twigged they are out for generations.

well we had that debate 5 years ago and the voting public overwhelmingly rejected change

I very much agree. If Labour had won or won enough seats to form a coalition government, would we have seen such articles from Labour supporters advocating change?

Not by the hair of your chinny chin chin. They would be arguing that the people have spoken. Well whatever way you look at this, based off either voting system, the majority of people voted for RW politics.

Belatucadros wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes its amazing how gung ho so many of the losing parties are now for change, especially as they have twigged they are out for generations.

well we had that debate 5 years ago and the voting public overwhelmingly rejected change

I very much agree. If Labour had won or won enough seats to form a coalition government, would we have seen such articles from Labour supporters advocating change?

Not by the hair of your chinny chin chin. They would be arguing that the people have spoken. Well whatever way you look at this, based off either voting system, the majority of people voted for RW politics.

I have seen numerous references to the 76% who did not vote tory, apparently by counting those that did not vote at all.
Of course if that is to be taken as gospel then it should be pointed out that in the recent irish gay marriage vote. 62½% did not vote for yes. Of course in these polls we only count the people who do vote. I have not seen a single 76%er address the 62½%. It seems that picking and choosing is the order of the day.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


I very much agree. If Labour had won or won enough seats to form a coalition government, would we have seen such articles from Labour supporters advocating change?

Not by the hair of your chinny chin chin. They would be arguing that the people have spoken. Well whatever way you look at this, based off either voting system, the majority of people voted for RW politics.

I have seen numerous references to the 76% who did not vote tory, apparently by counting those that did not vote at all.
Of course if that is to be taken as gospel then it should be pointed out that in the recent irish gay marriage vote. 62½% did not vote for yes. Of course in these polls we only count the people who do vote. I have not seen a single 76%er address the 62½%. It seems that picking and choosing is the order of the day.

That is a fair point, if people back the Irish referendum of which I do. It does show hypocrisy over how people pick and choose voting systems, but those who did not vote as you say did not care enough and by not caring enough is more in favour of those not being against Gay marriage is it not? They would have voted against gay marriage if it did. So those who choose not to vote are of little relevance, as if it does matter you would choose to vote. So going off who does not vote is a redundant argument

I have known sass since just before the 2010 election, and way back then we both supported PR. Still do, regardless of the hand it would give to UKIP. It is the only truly fair system.

Eilzel wrote:I have known sass since just before the 2010 election, and way back then we both supported PR. Still do, regardless of the hand it would give to UKIP. It is the only truly fair system.

Did she moan about PR when Labour last won Eilzel, of like you say did her support only come off the Tories coming to power? She never did. Sorry but that to me is double standards. No the PR it is not a fair system locally to what those individuals vote for, because they could see who they individually vote for being over turned. They have voted for an individual and because of an even unfairer system, they could see their majority allow someone else in, who they locally did not vote for. The other system is even worse democratically. True democracy is being given the right to vote on things that matter to you, which matter locally to where you live. If you say otherwise then you are then against the EU.

Are you seriously Telling me Sassy was against the last time Labour came to power off this voting system?
Behave, she never did, hence the hypocrisy. Only after the Tories came to power did her views change.

Yes I am, because I know sassy disliked Blair, and that until after the 2010 election sass was a Liberal. It was only after 2010 sass went off the Liberals (as many did sadly). The Liberaks have supported PR for decades.

Eilzel wrote:Yes I am, because I know sassy disliked Blair, and that until after the 2010 election sass was a Liberal. It was only after 2010 sass went off the Liberals (as many did sadly). The Liberaks have supported PR for decades.

And yet none of us saw Sassy publicly claim Labour should not be in power.
Stop talking bullshit Eilzel, as you show me where she condemned the last Labour victory?
Nothing worst than poor liars.
I am not denying your support for an even worse democratic system that denies locally a people their rights, to impose someone else not voted in, but only voted in off the vote of the nation. It really is an idiotic concept, because it denies self determination for those who live in an area.

We weren't on the forums in 2005 didge so wtf?

And again, Sass was a Liberal Democrat in 2005 AND 2010.

When did you first come into contact with sassy, didge? Because if you are asking for something before you met then isn't that absurd?

Eilzel wrote:We weren't on the forums in 2005 didge so wtf?

And again, Sass was a Liberal Democrat in 2005 AND 2010.

When did you first come into contact with sassy, didge? Because if you are asking for something before you met then isn't that absurd?

Yes we were Eilzel on Sky. I could not give a fuck how she changed her views like the wind, you miss the point.
When ever has she ever condemned the last Labour victories?
Stop talking bollocks Eilzel, you are a very poor liar
I know exactly when I started debating on sky.
What an idiotic reply, because she should be condemning every Labour previous win.
Has she?
No, stop talking shit as your system of democracy denies self determination to people locally, it is at best forcing a nation to impose their views locally on people.
Answer the fucking questions.

Well for once I fully agree with Sassy regarding proportional representation and I do not believe her case is a matter of sour grapes either.

She is simply stating facts.

We all know,because the post General Election figures show that there were several reasons why the Conservatives won the GE.Two of the foremost reasons for that victory are UKIP & the SNP......And a the incumbent voting system.

Just deal with it because it's fact.

Didge, you might have been on Sky in 2005, but I'm pretty sure sassy wasn't (she can confirm either way), so no surprise she you don't remember her condemning them since you didn't know her.

That aside, you are clearly ranting. So let's see what sass says shall we.

Eilzel wrote:Didge, you might have been on Sky in 2005, but I'm pretty sure sassy wasn't (she can confirm either way), so no surprise she you don't remember her condemning them since you didn't know her.

That aside, you are clearly ranting. So let's see what sass says shall we.

Why has Didge turned against you all of a sudden?

I don't think he has, we just disagree here. Although he does have a 'way with words' doesn't he lol

Eilzel wrote:I don't think he has, we just disagree here. Although he does have a 'way with words' doesn't he lol

Well maybe it's more than just a way with words,as he turned on you quite noticeably & with more than a bit of a sting.

Pissed?

Eilzel wrote:Didge, you might have been on Sky in 2005, but I'm pretty sure sassy wasn't (she can confirm either way), so no surprise she you don't remember her condemning them since you didn't know her.

That aside, you are clearly ranting. So let's see what sass says shall we.

Hi Les, you are quite right, I didn't join Sky until 2008, in 2005 didn't even have my own computer. And you are quite right, voted Lib Dem in 2010 because Bob Russell was such a great MP for Colchester, where I then lived.

Eilzel wrote:Didge, you might have been on Sky in 2005, but I'm pretty sure sassy wasn't (she can confirm either way), so no surprise she you don't remember her condemning them since you didn't know her.

That aside, you are clearly ranting. So let's see what sass says shall we.

Ranting? Do not even attempt to get cocky, because as stated she never ever condemn any labour victory of which at no point can you confirm you idiot, nothing worse than weasels you attempt to lie for people.
So unless you can back this up I suggest you pipe down my boy.

risingsun wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Didge, you might have been on Sky in 2005, but I'm pretty sure sassy wasn't (she can confirm either way), so no surprise she you don't remember her condemning them since you didn't know her.

That aside, you are clearly ranting. So let's see what sass says shall we.

Hi Les, you are quite right, I didn't join Sky until 2008, in 2005 didn't even have my own computer.  And you are quite right, voted Lib Dem in 2010 because Bob Russell was such a great MP for Colchester, where I then lived.

Yet you have never said Labour should have never been in power under this system.
When were you bemoaning this system before the general election when you thought Labour would win a coalition majority?

Eilzel wrote:I don't think he has, we just disagree here. Although he does have a 'way with words' doesn't he lol

After this ill informed post, no shady is right on this occasion as he easily sucks you into his shit stirring. Countering you is not ranting. I am beginning to see why others refer to you as militant. Your view as to what is more democratic is the least democratic on voting. Nothing worse than someone who does not see when they are being used lol

Belatucadros wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I don't think he has, we just disagree here. Although he does have a 'way with words' doesn't he lol

After this ill informed post, no shady is right on this occasion as he easily sucks you into his shit stirring. Countering you is not ranting. I am beginning to see why others refer to you as militant. Your view as to what is more democratic is the least democratic on voting. Nothing worse than someone who does not see when they are being used lol

Yep.....You're pissed.

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

After this ill informed post, no shady is right on this occasion as he easily sucks you into his shit stirring. Countering you is not ranting. I am beginning to see why others refer to you as militant. Your view as to what is more democratic is the least democratic on voting. Nothing worse than someone who does not see when they are being used lol

Yep.....You're pissed.

Pissed at Eilzel for falling for your shit stirring, you are quite correct.
Did I make your day lol

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:

Yep.....You're pissed.

Pissed at Eilzel for falling for your shit stirring, you are quite correct.
Did I make your day lol

Shit stirring? All I did was ask one question & you interpret that as shit stirring.

Go & have a lie down & when you've sobered up,you can spend another 24 hours solid pumping yourself up on this site.

No wonder you drink so much.

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Pissed at Eilzel for falling for your shit stirring, you are quite correct.
Did I make your day lol

Shit stirring? All I did was ask one question & you interpret that as shit stirring.

Go & have a lie down & when you've sobered up,you can spend another 24 hours solid pumping yourself up on this site.

No wonder you drink so much.

Well little one, I do not drink, so it would be a neat trick for me to get drunk, and the fact you bring this onto the thread which has nothing to do with the debate, proves the fact you are a shit stirrer.
No wonder you are so delusional you poor chap

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:

Shit stirring? All I did was ask one question & you interpret that as shit stirring.

Go & have a lie down & when you've sobered up,you can spend another 24 hours solid pumping yourself up on this site.

No wonder you drink so much.

Well little one, I do not drink, so it would be a neat trick for me to get drunk, and the fact you bring this onto the thread which has nothing to do with the debate, proves the fact you are a shit stirrer.
No wonder you are so delusional you poor chap

Why did you get so upset with Eilzel? Is it because he disagreed with you?........Liar.

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Well little one, I do not drink, so it would be a neat trick for me to get drunk, and the fact you bring this onto the thread which has nothing to do with the debate, proves the fact you are a shit stirrer.
No wonder you are so delusional you poor chap

Why did you get so upset with Eilzel? Is it because he disagreed with you?........Liar.

I am not upset with him, disappointed.
I am disappointed he would choose to be pally with someone like yourself who is only here to create conflict between posters, when you constantly insult him all the time

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:

Why did you get so upset with Eilzel? Is it because he disagreed with you?........Liar.

I am not upset with him, disappointed.
I am disappointed he would choose to be pally with someone like yourself who is only here to create conflict between posters, when you constantly insult him all the time

There's no fool like a drunken old fool.Hell would freeze over before Eilzel became 'pally'with me & vice versa.

And those are not insults,they are ...........Kisses

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I am not upset with him, disappointed.
I am disappointed he would choose to be pally with someone like yourself who is only here to create conflict between posters, when you constantly insult him all the time

There's no fool like a drunken old fool.Hell would freeze over before Eilzel became 'pally'with me & vice versa.

And those are not insults,they are ...........Kisses

Are thanks shady, would you like a hug back from me?



You see you keep proving you are nothing more than a pathetic troll.

Belatucadros wrote:

Shady wrote:

There's no fool like a drunken old fool.Hell would freeze over before Eilzel became 'pally'with me & vice versa.

And those are not insults,they are ...........Kisses

Are thanks shady, would you like a hug back from me?



You see you keep proving you are nothing more than a pathetic troll.

Yep.....But me & Eilzel are big buddies now.

Shady wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Are thanks shady, would you like a hug back from me?



You see you keep proving you are nothing more than a pathetic troll.

Yep.....But me & Eilzel are big buddies now.

Poor Elizel lol

I'll leave you to get in the last post,because apparently your type need to as it conforms to some kind of weird criteria?

Some sort of obsessive,compulsive disorder type thing?...Well I'm sure you now what I mean.Don't you?

Shady wrote:I'll leave you to get in the last post,because apparently your type need to as it conforms to some kind of weird criteria?

Some sort of obsessive,compulsive disorder type thing?...Well I'm sure you now what I mean.Don't you?

Well all I can say and prove is how you continue to derail threads, as what have you offered on the subject since you came on tonight.

Nothing, proving you are a troll out to cause trouble.

What the heck happened here?

Believe what you want to believe didge, as sassy has since come on and confirmed what I said (and that I didn't lie at all), I see little point in continuing.

You didn't know sassy during the last Labour government, and sass wasn't Labour then anyway- so you are kicking up a fuss on a minor irrelevance.

Eilzel wrote:What the heck happened here?

Believe what you want to believe didge, as sassy has since come on and confirmed what I said (and that I didn't lie at all), I see little point in continuing.

You didn't know sassy during the last Labour government, and sass wasn't Labour then anyway- so you are kicking up a fuss on a minor irrelevance.

So from 2006 when you clam sassy was on sky and she has been debating  as when Labour was in power until 2010 she always said they should have never been in power due to the voting system?
Sorry I smell something, bullshit.
So I did know Sassy during the last Labour Government from her views made where she always tended to defend them loads. Even before this election no view was made on the voting when she thought the left would win a coalition. So I am kicking up a fuss, I know what I read on Sassy being as left wing as they come and like I say if Labour had gotten into power you would not have heard anything from the left on this.
Only because they got spanked in this election, now people are pandering to this voting system, which only caters to votes as a nation as a whole and not the real views on the self determination of people locally.

You are simply lying didge. Sassy just said she was on Sky from 2008, 2 years before the 2010 election in which she voted Liberal Democrat. So NO she didn't defend them loads, and has always been very critical of New Labour in the 5+ years I've been here.

And again Sassy has like me always wanted PR.

Didge, would you like to take a deep breath and stop being so confrontational? I have always, no matter who is in power, supported PR, and did so way back when the Liberal Party existed and I was Liberal (which at heart I still am, unfortunately the Liberal Party, which was very different to the Lib Dems, consists of about 10 people) and that was way back in the 1970s.

If you look at the figures which I already put on of how many seats the parties would have had under PR:

Cons 240

Labour 198

UKIP 82

Lib Dems 51

SNP 31

Greens 24

you will note that the Labour Party would have got less, and UKIP, which I despise, would have got a lot more.

However, going out and doing canvassing and telephone canvassing during the GE has taught me a great deal. This election has shown up something that has never happened before. There are many who don't want to vote for the 'main parties' and they feel totally disenfranchised. And that is dangerous to democracy. All those people who voted UKIP and got one MP as feeling very angry, and that is not a stable way for a country to be. Also, I heard time and time again, I'd vote Green, but they won't get in etc.

The article in the OP was simply a peg to hang a debate about PR on, and could have been an intelligent, rational discussion about something that is going to be more and more important in the future, as I can't see it ever going back to elections with 2/3 parties.

I actually think "STP" would work even better:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eilzel wrote:You are simply lying didge. Sassy just said she was on Sky from 2008, 2 years before the 2010 election in which she voted Liberal Democrat. So NO she didn't defend them loads, and has always been very critical of New Labour in the 5+ years I've been here.

So what that she voted, she certainly changed who she supported, I have never heard so much bullshit from you. In all that time she never once stated that Labour should not be in power and has never since stated they never should have been in power to this day, trhe point you miss at every turn. Being critical is one thing,m stating they should have never been in power of this voting system is another.
So I am not lying weasel

risingsun wrote:Didge, would you like to take a deep breath and stop being so confrontational?  I have always, no matter who is in power, supported PR, and did so way back when the Liberal Party existed and I was Liberal (which at heart I still am, unfortunately the Liberal Party, which was very different to the Lib Dems, consists of about 10 people) and that was way back in the 1970s.

If you look at the figures which I already put on of how many seats the parties would have had under PR:

Cons 240

Labour 198

UKIP 82

Lib Dems 51

SNP 31

Greens 24

you will note that the Labour Party would have got less, and UKIP, which I despise, would have got a lot more.

However, going out and doing canvassing and telephone canvassing during the GE has taught me a great deal.  This election has shown up something that has never happened before.  There are many who don't want to vote for the 'main parties' and they feel totally disenfranchised.   And that is dangerous to democracy.  All those people who voted UKIP and got one MP as feeling very angry, and that is not a stable way for a country to be.   Also, I heard time and time again, I'd vote Green, but they won't get in etc.  

The article in the OP was simply a peg to hang a debate about PR on, and could have been an intelligent, rational discussion about something that is going to be more and more important in the future, as I can't see it ever going back to elections with 2/3 parties.

I do not need to take any breath sassy as again for one not once have I ever heard you say Labour should have ever been in power off this system.
It also shows that right wing support when you accumulate all RW parties up is over 50% of the vote. UKIP and Tories alone is 49.5%, add the DUP and you get 50.1% of which I can add more to this. What ever way you look at it, the Tories would have still had a majority Coalition with UKIP and are you saying you would prefer a Tory Ukip coalition over a Tory Government?


As I say sour grapes

Also the vote system you propose is not a fair system locally for who people vote for, its only fair nationally, which denies people locally who they vote for.
There is thus both good and bad in both systems, but at least this has one party not hindered by others to form a coalition. We have seen a coalition in the form of the most idiotic party to grace this nation the Liberals and people resoundly voted against such a coalition happenning, which is telling in itself

So I changed who I supported. Isn't that democracy, or do you think people should only ever stick to one party? I changed for Liberal to Lib/Dem because the Liberal Party to no longer existed and Bob Russell was a brilliant MP. But the Lib/Dems has moved a long way from the ideas of the old Liberal Paty, and I no longer live in Colchester which Bob Russell represented. And I was very vocal about supporting PR during the time it was being discussed.

Frankly Didge, you could have a fight with wet flannel in dark room and you are looking pathetic and unable to have a grown up conversation.

risingsun wrote:So I changed who I supported.  Isn't that democracy, or do you think people should only ever stick to one party?  I changed for Liberal to Lib/Dem because the Liberal Party to no longer existed and Bob Russell was a brilliant MP.   But the Lib/Dems has moved a long way from the ideas of the old Liberal Paty, and I no longer live in Colchester which Bob Russell represented.   And I was very vocal about supporting PR during the time it was being discussed.

Frankly Didge, you could have a fight with wet flannel in dark room and you are looking pathetic and unable to have a grown up conversation.

I am not concered who you change your support to.
I am only concerened at how at no point did you ever say Labour should not be in power based off that voting system.
Also the PR vote system you propose is not a fair system locally for who people vote for, its only fair nationally, which denies people locally who they vote for.
There is thus both good and bad in both systems, but at least this has one party not hindered by others to form a coalition. We have seen a coalition in the form of the most idiotic party to grace this nation the Liberals and people resoundly voted against such a coalition happenning, which is telling in itself.

So you say grown up conversation and then insult as well, so gloves off then if you so wish?
Eilzel is a weasel for pandering to the troll.