[Archived] The General Election 2015

[thenodrog]

As for Sugar who cares, really ?

Plenty I suppose otherwise he'd have 'come out' before now.

btw Brother David has joined in the Ed knocking now. Anybody care about him do you suppose?

We'll not go into what you've been blessed with over the years, all in aid of messageboard harmony!

I will... it's 'foresight'. Much different.

[ABBEY]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cameron-slashes-manchesters-spending-power-8313554?fb_ref=Default#ICID=sharebar_facebook

Cameron slashes Manchester's 'spending power' by £28m (but Surrey's goes up by £27m)

[chaddyrovers]

what about the 2000 today that lost jobs today at whistl , do the tories care ? No you dont.

this why TNT is cutting the 2000 jobs.

Postal business Whistl - formerly TNT Post - has suspended its door-to-door delivery service in London, Liverpool and Manchester and is consulting 2,000 workers on redundancy.

The move follows a decision last month by potential investment partner LDC not to fund its expansion plans.

Whistl will continue to provide a service, but will revert back to using the Royal Mail for the "final mile".

Shares in Royal Mail rose 3.3% after the news was announced.

Last month, LDC, a division of of Lloyds Banking Group, decided against investing in Whistl because of "ongoing changes in UK postal market dynamics and the complexity of the regulatory landscape".

At the time, Whistl said it would hold back from expansion but planned to continue its existing service.

Whistl said: "Following the announcement from LDC that it would not proceed with the proposed investment... to fund further rollout of E2E [end-to-end] we have now commenced an extensive review of the viability and potential for the rollout of an e2e postal delivery service in the UK

[yoda]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cameron-slashes-manchesters-spending-power-8313554?fb_ref=Default#ICID=sharebar_facebook

Cameron slashes Manchester's 'spending power' by £28m (but Surrey's goes up by £27m)

Old news ABBEY, check the date

[thenodrog]

what about the 2000 today that lost jobs today at whistl , do the tories care ? No you dont.

No one wants to see people lose their jobs but isn't Whistl in direct competition with the Post Office? It's been set up to compete with the Poat Office and it's failed, and if it's losing money then surely it'll boost the Post Office and likely see jobs materialise there. Not only that but Whistl is owned by TNT and that is Dutch company so how do you propose any UK government could alter that situation WITHOUT throwing our money at it for no good reason?

[thenodrog]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cameron-slashes-manchesters-spending-power-8313554?fb_ref=Default#ICID=sharebar_facebook

Cameron slashes Manchester's 'spending power' by £28m (but Surrey's goes up by £27m)

I don't know any figures nor any reasons but Surrey council has been under Tory control for just about all of the past 50 years whilst Manchester City council has been 100% Labour for ever. Go figure Abbey. Be bloody odd if the Tories had done anything else wouldn't it? Role reversal and I bet you'd have done the same only the other way about. Those Mancs should have voted tory though, they were asked too again just recently remember and chose to ignore the advice.

[yoda]

Not all bad for the Mancs and surrounding area

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/hsbc-launches-400m-fund-manchester-9235586

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/surecare-create-100-new-jobs-9233619#rlabs=3

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/manchester-city-centre-shops-netted-9226776#rlabs=3

[jim mk2]

Southern party looks after the south - and yet the political turkeys up here still don't get it by voting for them.

On another note, there's an interesting letter in the Financial Times.

"Comparing 2015 with 2010, Ed Miliband increased Labour’s share of the vote by 1.5 percentage points (28.9-30.4 per cent) yet Labour lost 10 per cent of its seats (258-232).

David Cameron increased the Tories’ share of the vote by 0.8 percentage points (36.1-36.9 per cent) and the Tories increased their seats by 8 per cent (307-331).

I am confused about the near-unanimous talk of Mr Miliband’s failure. Surely there should be more focus on the failure of the electoral system that delivers such results and gives the Scottish nationalists one seat for 26,000 votes, the Conservatives for 34,200 votes, Labour for 40,300 votes and the UK Independence party for 3,881,000 votes."

[yoda]

Southern party looks after the south - and yet the political turkeys up here still don't get it by voting for them.

On another note, there's an interesting letter in the Financial Times.

"Comparing 2015 with 2010, Ed Miliband increased Labour’s share of the vote by 1.5 percentage points (28.9-30.4 per cent) yet Labour lost 10 per cent of its seats (258-232).

David Cameron increased the Tories’ share of the vote by 0.8 percentage points (36.1-36.9 per cent) and the Tories increased their seats by 8 per cent (307-331).

I am confused about the near-unanimous talk of Mr Miliband’s failure. Surely there should be more focus on the failure of the electoral system that delivers such results and gives the Scottish nationalists one seat for 26,000 votes, the Conservatives for 34,200 votes, Labour for 40,300 votes and the UK Independence party for 3,881,000 votes."

you can't play that card Jim when Labour and the Tories both have vested interest's in keeping the 1st pass the post system.

The only talk worth listening too about Eds failure is his own

[jim mk2]

Making the point about the need for electoral reform: FPTP is a broken old system used by very few progressive nations now.

[thenodrog]

.

[chaddyrovers]

Southern party looks after the south - and yet the political turkeys up here still don't get it by voting for them.

On another note, there's an interesting letter in the Financial Times.

"Comparing 2015 with 2010, Ed Miliband increased Labour’s share of the vote by 1.5 percentage points (28.9-30.4 per cent) yet Labour lost 10 per cent of its seats (258-232).

David Cameron increased the Tories’ share of the vote by 0.8 percentage points (36.1-36.9 per cent) and the Tories increased their seats by 8 per cent (307-331).

I am confused about the near-unanimous talk of Mr Miliband’s failure. Surely there should be more focus on the failure of the electoral system that delivers such results and gives the Scottish nationalists one seat for 26,000 votes, the Conservatives for 34,200 votes, Labour for 40,300 votes and the UK Independence party for 3,881,000 votes."

suggest you listen to what David Miliband has said about the Labour party and his brother leadership of it?

he wasn't impress with the campaign or what policies Ed had for the country

[thenodrog]

Southern party looks after the south - and yet the political turkeys up here still don't get it by voting for them.

On another note, there's an interesting letter in the Financial Times.

"Comparing 2015 with 2010, Ed Miliband increased Labour’s share of the vote by 1.5 percentage points (28.9-30.4 per cent) yet Labour lost 10 per cent of its seats (258-232).

David Cameron increased the Tories’ share of the vote by 0.8 percentage points (36.1-36.9 per cent) and the Tories increased their seats by 8 per cent (307-331).

I am confused about the near-unanimous talk of Mr Miliband’s failure. Surely there should be more focus on the failure of the electoral system that delivers such results and gives the Scottish nationalists one seat for 26,000 votes, the Conservatives for 34,200 votes, Labour for 40,300 votes and the UK Independence party for 3,881,000 votes."

Making the point about the need for electoral reform: FPTP is a broken old system used by very few progressive nations now.

Yeah it's not right is it? Just think of the power that a Tory/Ukip coalition might have commanded in that scenario.

[Guest]

Stinks to high heaven. The big two were determined to undermine UKIP by fair means or foul.

UKIP talking about "fairness" and being on the wrong side of "foul". How ironic.

[jim mk2]

Yeah it's not right is it? Just think of the power that a Tory/Ukip coalition might have commanded in that scenario.

Fewer than a combined left according to the figures I've seen. .

[yoda]

Fewer than a combined left. But well done for shooting from the hip, failing to do any research and getting it wrong again.

Then again, who is to say how the vote would have gone with a form of PR,

very different I should imagine

[Mike E]

Fewer than a combined left according to the figures I've seen. .

Yet again no actual source.

Southern party looks after the south - and yet the political turkeys up here still don't get it by voting for them.

On another note, there's an interesting letter in the Financial Times.

"Comparing 2015 with 2010, Ed Miliband increased Labours share of the vote by 1.5 percentage points (28.9-30.4 per cent) yet Labour lost 10 per cent of its seats (258-232).

David Cameron increased the Tories share of the vote by 0.8 percentage points (36.1-36.9 per cent) and the Tories increased their seats by 8 per cent (307-331).

I am confused about the near-unanimous talk of Mr Milibands failure. Surely there should be more focus on the failure of the electoral system that delivers such results and gives the Scottish nationalists one seat for 26,000 votes, the Conservatives for 34,200 votes, Labour for 40,300 votes and the UK Independence party for 3,881,000 votes."

I agree with you here but your 'increase in share of vote' assumes the same percentage of voters. Didn't about 2-3% more of the electorate vote this time? So about 1.5m extra votes?

[ABBEY]

[only2garners]

I agree with you here but your 'increase in share of vote' assumes the same percentage of voters. Didn't about 2-3% more of the electorate vote this time? So about 1.5m extra votes?

Turnout this year was 66.1%, up 1% from 2010, so fairly negligible.

It's completely pointless trying to work out what effect a PR system would have had on this election. Voter behaviour under a PR system will be different - most pople will vote for the party they really won't rather than voting tactically.

[ultrablue]

All this talk of PR, which I am broadly in support of. But we just came out of 5 years of a coaltion government which effectively destroyed the smaller party. This election campaign was largely run on the presumption of a hung parliament (in spite what the big two parties may have said), with everyone being very cagey and not commiting to any real promises.

There are definite downsides to a system of PR to which the big two parties, especially the Tories, can point. And clearly the No vote in the 2011 referendum shows - the majority of voters don't actually tend to like uncertainty and coalitions.

[joey_big_nose]

All this talk of PR, which I am broadly in support of. But we just came out of 5 years of a coaltion government which effectively destroyed the smaller party. This election campaign was largely run on the presumption of a hung parliament (in spite what the big two parties may have said), with everyone being very cagey and not commiting to any real promises.

There are definite downsides to a system of PR to which the big two parties, especially the Tories, can point. And clearly the No vote in the 2011 referendum shows - the majority of voters don't actually tend to like uncertainty and coalitions.

If we had proportional representation in 2010 the Lib Dems would have been much larger as they got 20% of the vote. Instead of 60 seats they would have got 130. The whole complexion of the parliament would have been different. Cameron would have been much weaker, Clegg much stronger. On tuition fees for example Clegg would have been able to fight his corner better.

PR is a matter of time. It clearly wins the moral argument, and it is increasingly in the interest of supporters of parties that are not labour or Conservative. Many in the labour party will be reconsidering their position also as Jim says. It is used successfully in Ireland, Scotland, Australia, Germany etc.

I don't think people have an issue with coalitions per se. In this election it was the fear of a coalition specifically with the SNP which was unpopular.

[dave birch]

JBN, our system, (for the House of Reps) is known as "preferential voting".

It allows you to preference, in order each candidate.

For the upper house (The Senate) it is based on a quota system that is more akin to proportional representation, but it can, as decribed below throw up some really weird results, as a result of arrangements made between parties.

This, from Wikipedia explains it:

Allocation process for House of Representatives

The main elements of the operation of preferential voting for single-member House of Representatives divisions are as follows:^[19][20]

• Voters are required to place the number "1" against their first choice of candidate, known as the "first preference" or "primary vote".
• Voters are then required to place the numbers "2", "3", etc., against all of the other candidates listed on the ballot paper, in order of preference.
• Each ballot paper is examined to ensure that it is validly filled in.
• The number "1" or first preference votes are counted first. If no candidate secures an absolute majority (more than half) of first preference votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded from the count.
• The votes for the eliminated candidate are re-allocated to the remaining candidates according to the number "2" or "second preference" votes.
• If no candidate has yet secured an absolute majority of the vote, then the next candidate with the fewest primary votes is eliminated. This preference allocation is repeated until there is a candidate with an absolute majority. Where a second (or subsequent) preference is expressed for a candidate who has already been eliminated, the voter's third or subsequent preferences are used.

Following the full allocation of preferences, it is possible to derive a two-party-preferred figure, where the votes are divided between the two main candidates in the election. In Australia, this is usually between the candidates from the two major parties.

Alternative allocation methods for Senate

For the Australian Senate, each State constitutes one multi-member electorate. Currently, 12 senators are elected from each State, one half every three years, except in the case of double dissolution when elections for all 12 senators in each State takes place. The number of senators to be elected determines the 'quota' required to be achieved for election. For a half-Senate election of 6 places to be filled, the quota in each State is 14.28% (calculated using the formula 1/(6+1)), while after a double dissolution the quota is 7.69% (calculated using the formula 1/(12+1)).

The federal Senate electoral system, and those for some state legislatures, now provide for simultaneous registration of party-listed candidates and party-determined orders of voting preference, known as 'group voting tickets' or 'above the line voting' which involves placing the number '1' in a single box and the vote is then allocated in accordance with the party's registered voting preferences. The AEC automatically allocates preferences, or votes, in the predetermined order outlined in the group voting ticket. Each party or group can register up to three group voting tickets. This highly complex system has potential for unexpected outcomes,^[21] including the possible election of a candidate who may have initially received an insignificant primary vote tally. (See, for example, the Minor Party Alliance at the 2013 federal election.) An estimated 95% of all votes are cast 'above the line'.^[22]

The alternative is to use 'below the line voting' by numbering a large number of individual candidate's boxes in the order of their own preference. To be valid, the voter must place sequential numbers against every candidate on the ballot paper, and the risk of error and invalidation of the vote is significant.

Having said that, coalitions are not necessarily a bad thing. They can rein in the more extreme policies of one of the coalition parties. It makes the leading party negotiate more, and as a consequence they usually have to pare back their original ideas to get them passed, but as you pointed out with Clegg, it needs a strong minded minor party to not give way on their ideas.

[Biddy]

There are definite downsides to a system of PR to which the big two parties, especially the Tories, can point. And clearly the No vote in the 2011 referendum shows - the majority of voters don't actually tend to like uncertainty and coalitions.

That last bit is not strictly true. The referendum was on a watered down "Alternative Vote" which was the most concession the Conservatives were willing to make. The parties for AV did not have a very convincing argument (as it was not PR which is what they really wanted/needed) and the whole thing was far, far too confusing. I think the leaflet that was sent out with the pro's and con's was deliberately confusing which meant most people, including myself just defaulted to a "No" vote.

[ultrablue]

Agreed Biddy - the move away from the Jenkins Commission recommendation of AV+ to simple AV gave the whole campaign a kind of wishy-washy feel, with no-one really giving a strong case in favour change.

As several posters have pointed out, looking back over our past elections and converting a national share of votes under FPTP into a truly proportional breakdown is pointless. The electoral system has a profound effect on the way people vote.

Personally I'm in favour of the Single Transferable Vote system. Yes we will almost always be governed by coalitions - which I maintain is going to be a sticking point for many people. But it will shake up the whole two-party system, it will let people state preferences which diminishes the amount of negative campaigning, and it keeps more of a link between constituencies and representatives than a simple party list system.

The only other problem with STV is that it the math to dtermine the winner is comparatively complicated. I doubt those lot in Sunderland could do it in an hour like they currently do.

[Baz]

Agreed Biddy - the move away from the Jenkins Commission recommendation of AV+ to simple AV gave the whole campaign a kind of wishy-washy feel, with no-one really giving a strong case in favour change.

As several posters have pointed out, looking back over our past elections and converting a national share of votes under FPTP into a truly proportional breakdown is pointless. The electoral system has a profound effect on the way people vote.

Personally I'm in favour of the Single Transferable Vote system. Yes we will almost always be governed by coalitions - which I maintain is going to be a sticking point for many people. But it will shake up the whole two-party system, it will let people state preferences which diminishes the amount of negative campaigning, and it keeps more of a link between constituencies and representatives than a simple party list system.

The only other problem with STV is that it the math to dtermine the winner is comparatively complicated. I doubt those lot in Sunderland could do it in an hour like they currently do.

If we move to electronic voting, then we could know the results within seconds of the polls closing.

Personally I'd like a system where I could vote for my local MP, and also a second vote in a PR system for the government party I wanted. Each party then could have a selection list of candidates of their leadership (as those people are much less likely to be able to spend time on local issues). Maybe that would mean less constituencies overall in order to not end up with more MPs, but it could deliver good local MPs and a government that is more representative of the will of all the people.