London protests (riots)

[viv1969]

Promised no frontline reductions. Cut nearly 6k NHS nurses, 7k hospital beds, a third of ambulance stations, over 5k firefighters and 7k police officers....

Promised to keep VAT at 17.5%. Raised it to 20%

Promised no topdown restructuring of the NHS. Overseen the biggest topdown restructuring of the NHS in it's history.

Promised to keep the EMA. Abolished it less than a year after forming a coalition.

Promised to back and improve sure start. 566 sure start centres closed and over half of those remaining were cut back.

Promised not to change the Future Jobs Fund. Abolished it.

Promised that bank bonuses would stop being paid on the back of taxpayer guarantees. Failed to do this AND Osbourne tried (and failed) to take legal action against the EU commission over it's plan to cap such payments!

Promised to protect winter fuel allowance. Cut it by up to 25% in 2011.

Promised to cut immigration to the levels of the 1990s. It has risen 39% since 2010.

Promised to cut ministers pay by 5% and freeze it for 5 years. After cutting it they outsourced future decisions to a quasi-independent body that then gave MPs a 11% payrise.

Promised to reduce emissions and build a greener economy. Cut green spending and Cameron was embarrassed by a leak that had him referring to green energy as 'all the green crap.' Furthurmore they backed shale gas as an alternative to cleaner, green energy.

Promised 'near-total transparency' of the political and governing elite. Then delted all the party's promises and commitments made between 2000 and 2010 from their website.

And any other party would have stuck to all their promises?
Honest politicians/parties don't exist.

 

[Dave *]

No one is struggling with maths at all.I don't want the present system because it is not democratic for someone (however) to get 4 million votes 12% of the votes cast and only have one seat in the HOC to represent those 4,000000 people.Yet 1.5 million people have 56 seats in the HOC.If you are happy with the present system then so be it.It is nothing to do with struggling with maths quite the oposite I might suggest.

You are still missing the point, the SNP only stood in around 58 seats, UKIP stood in almost all of the 650 seats so any attempt to compare their vote total is stupid. The Scottish make up around 8% of the population and the Scottish seats make up around 8% of the Commons...

Whatever else is wrong, the SNP vote and number of seats seems quite fair, the majority of the Scots voted for a SNP MP in almost every constituency, so that's what they got.

If all 3-4 million UKIP supporters lived in 70 or 80 constituencies then they would probably have won 70-80 seats.

 

[Joshwain]

oh dear, what have I started here?!

I'm completely out of my depth seeing as I've only been following politics for a year or so, but something isn't right when voters feel like they are being cheated. Personally, I think the system should change but how? I don't know.

People need to be represented locally in parliament, which is where the current system works. But people also want to be represented nationally and globally, which is where people feel cheated. I guess there's no best of both, so it's deciding which is most important.

Maybe being represented locally isn't as important any more, maybe the system is outdated - which it certainly is, no online voting and all.

That's another interesting thing to think about - what would the turnout be if people could vote online?

 

[cambsno]

And any other party would have stuck to all their promises?
Honest politicians/parties don't exist.

I think they do but you can't forecast 5 years ahead. It's like me planning to take the kids away on holiday but then having to go back as my wages are cut and can't afford it. Vat being a case in point. No party should rule out tax rises or cuts as things change, especially last time when they did not know the situation. This time few promises should be broken but hey, what if they promise xyz but it doesn't get thru the commons? Not their fault.

 

[viv1969]

I think they do but you can't forecast 5 years ahead. It's like me planning to take the kids away on holiday but then having to go back as my wages are cut and can't afford it. Vat being a case in point. No party should rule out tax rises or cuts as things change, especially last time when they did not know the situation. This time few promises should be broken but hey, what if they promise xyz but it doesn't get thru the commons? Not their fault.

I see your point completely.
But then they shouldn't 'promise', they should aim.
But they do promise, and the gullible fall for it and vote accordingly.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

You are still missing the point, the SNP only stood in around 58 seats, UKIP stood in almost all of the 650 seats so any attempt to compare their vote total is stupid. The Scottish make up around 8% of the population and the Scottish seats make up around 8% of the Commons...

Whatever else is wrong, the SNP vote and number of seats seems quite fair, the majority of the Scots voted for a SNP MP in almost every constituency, so that's what they got.

If all 3-4 million UKIP supporters lived in 70 or 80 constituencies then they would probably have won 70-80 seats.

I don't get this at all. What you describe here is what happened. We all know that. The argument is that in the UK elections, the whole of the UK, that are decided by local constituency ballots, only 1.5m people in the whole of the UK voted SNP.

On a national basis, these are the facts. The reason the SNP got so many seats is that their smaller number of votes were concentrated, that's what gave them the MPs. However, on a national basis, the argument is, it's not fair.

How many seats they stood in is irrelevant. Nationally, it doesn't add up and people feel hard done by.

But this is the system we voted for in 2011 so tough luck.

 

[cowboy]

I didn't know the socialist worker was still about, I thought it had died a death with the labour party back in the eighties.

 

[POAH]

How many seats they stood in is irrelevant. Nationally, it doesn't add up and people feel hard done by.
.

it kinda does 1.6 million votes over 59 seats compared to 4 million over how many seats UKIP stood in (assuming most ) The more seats you stand in the more overall votes you'll get.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

it kinda does 1.6 million votes over 59 seats compared to 4 million over how many seats UKIP stood in (assuming most ) The more seats you stand in the more overall votes you'll get.

No, that's what happened. I get it. It's easy. However nationally, it isn't fair. That's what people mean. The fact they only stood in 59 seats is irrelevant. It was a UK election not a Scottish one.

 

[Dave *]

No, that's what happened. I get it. It's easy. However nationally, it isn't fair. That's what people mean. The fact they only stood in 59 seats is irrelevant. It was a UK election not a Scottish one.

The seats they won were in the UK Parliament at a UK election, the fact they all happen to be in Scotland is really irrelevant to the argument.

Those areas of the UK that happen to be in Scotland are just as entitled to their own choice of MP as any other part of the UK.

 

[kendo1]

No, that's what happened. I get it. It's easy. However nationally, it isn't fair. That's what people mean. The fact they only stood in 59 seats is irrelevant. It was a UK election not a Scottish one.

But, in effect it was a Scottish election for the 59 seats available. No-one outwith Scotland voted for the SNP, just as no voters in Scotland voted for other regions.

 

[POAH]

No, that's what happened. I get it. It's easy. However nationally, it isn't fair. That's what people mean. The fact they only stood in 59 seats is irrelevant. It was a UK election not a Scottish one.

but its totally relavent, if UKIP only stood in 59 seats they would have had less votes and no place to moan. 1/2 the scottish electorate voted for the SNP, have the UK electorate did not vote for UKIP.

 

[JennyGW]

I read about it lunchtime on my mobile via the..... BBC app

Seriously, the news has been there for all to find and read - maybe some should do that instead hyping up hysteria & conspiracy

Agreed.

 

[Steve Smith]

Promised no frontline reductions. Cut nearly 6k NHS nurses, 7k hospital beds, a third of ambulance stations, over 5k firefighters and 7k police officers....

Promised to keep VAT at 17.5%. Raised it to 20%

Promised no topdown restructuring of the NHS. Overseen the biggest topdown restructuring of the NHS in it's history.

Promised to keep the EMA. Abolished it less than a year after forming a coalition.

Promised to back and improve sure start. 566 sure start centres closed and over half of those remaining were cut back.

Promised not to change the Future Jobs Fund. Abolished it.

Promised that bank bonuses would stop being paid on the back of taxpayer guarantees. Failed to do this AND Osbourne tried (and failed) to take legal action against the EU commission over it's plan to cap such payments!

Promised to protect winter fuel allowance. Cut it by up to 25% in 2011.

Promised to cut immigration to the levels of the 1990s. It has risen 39% since 2010.

Promised to cut ministers pay by 5% and freeze it for 5 years. After cutting it they outsourced future decisions to a quasi-independent body that then gave MPs a 11% payrise.

Promised to reduce emissions and build a greener economy. Cut green spending and Cameron was embarrassed by a leak that had him referring to green energy as 'all the green crap.' Furthurmore they backed shale gas as an alternative to cleaner, green energy.

Promised 'near-total transparency' of the political and governing elite. Then delted all the party's promises and commitments made between 2000 and 2010 from their website.

But apart from all that?...


Steve.

 

[kendo1]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

 

[Rich_Ellis]

but its totally relavent, if UKIP only stood in 59 seats they would have had less votes and no place to moan. 1/2 the scottish electorate voted for the SNP, have the UK electorate did not vote for UKIP.

For goodness sakes. It wasn't a Scottish election. It was a UK one!! Nationally, regardless of where they stood, or how many seats they stood in, nationally they only got 1.5m votes. End of. That's it.

We know WHY they got the MPs. But nationally, if they'd put a candidate in every seat, equally, they wouldn't have got many more votes than they have already. However, that also is irrelevant.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

The seats they won were in the UK Parliament at a UK election, the fact they all happen to be in Scotland is really irrelevant to the argument.

Those areas of the UK that happen to be in Scotland are just as entitled to their own choice of MP as any other part of the UK.

Of course they are. What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

 

[kendo1]

But nationally, if they'd put a candidate in every seat, equally, they wouldn't have got many more votes than they have already. However, that also is irrelevant.

1st part- they didn't. Who would vote SNP in England and Wales anyway?
2nd part- your post is irrelevant, as you said.

 

[POAH]

For goodness sakes. It wasn't a Scottish election. It was a UK one!! Nationally, regardless of where they stood, or how many seats they stood in, nationally they only got 1.5m votes. End of. That's it.

We know WHY they got the MPs. But nationally, if they'd put a candidate in every seat, equally, they wouldn't have got many more votes than they have already. However, that also is irrelevant.

are you related to Brash?

 

[Byker28i]

You are still missing the point, the SNP only stood in around 58 seats, UKIP stood in almost all of the 650 seats so any attempt to compare their vote total is stupid. The Scottish make up around 8% of the population and the Scottish seats make up around 8% of the Commons...

Whatever else is wrong, the SNP vote and number of seats seems quite fair, the majority of the Scots voted for a SNP MP in almost every constituency, so that's what they got.

If all 3-4 million UKIP supporters lived in 70 or 80 constituencies then they would probably have won 70-80 seats.

Ukip stood in almost all seats? Did they have any candidates left as it seemed everyday another one was opening their mouth and being thrown out the party...

 

[Byker28i]

SNP result was as a result of the independence referendum, almost half the country thought they should be independent, the SNP worked with that, very successfully.

 

[Byker28i]

As for the London protests, they're all over the news. 15 arrested...

 

[Dale_tem]

View attachment 36960

Found the above. It is the average number of votes per seat based on the number of seats they contested.

This is a fairer way of looking at it.

 

[decigallen]

And any other party would have stuck to all their promises?
Honest politicians/parties don't exist.

There's sticking to promises and there's doing the opposite. The LDs suffered terribly over fees, the Tories increased their seats despite a catalogue of lies.

View attachment 36960

Found the above. It is the average number of votes per seat based on the number of seats they contested.

This is a fairer way of looking at it.

That's the point I was previously trying to make. UKIP are really pushing this 'injustice' because it's the scots. PR would likely still have seen a similar number of seats for SNP. It's the Tories who would've suffered most under PR.

I really don't get how people can't grasp this. If ukip got 4 million votes while contesting only 80 seats or so they'd have 80 MPs. The SNP comparison is daft.

50% of people who were presented with an SNP candidate, voted for them. Only 12% of people presented with a UKIP candidate, voted for one.

 

[POAH]

I really don't get how people can't grasp this. If ukip got 4 million votes while contesting only 80 seats or so they'd have 80 MPs. The SNP comparison is daft.

50% of people who were presented with an SNP candidate, voted for them. Only 12% of people presented with a UKIP candidate, voted for one.

but they wouldn't have because those 4 million votes were over 624 seats, so 80 seats would have been 500,000 votes.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

1st part- they didn't. Who would vote SNP in England and Wales anyway?
2nd part- your post is irrelevant, as you said.

Exactly. This is so ridiculous. It's a national vote count regardless of how many candidates anyone fielded and where as its a GENERAL election. Comparisons to how many candidates anyone had or didn't have is totally and utterly irrelevant.

Fptp is what we have so that's the way it works.

However, those advocating a 'fairer' system of votes cast have a point. To argue SNP only stood in less seats doesn't make a jot of difference. They have the right to stand in more, they chose not to. Of the UK population as a whole, of those that voted, the figures LOOK unfair.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

are you related to Brash?

Who's that and what's that got to do with anything? Are you related to Grash?

 

[decigallen]

Exactly. This is so ridiculous. It's a national vote count regardless of how many candidates anyone fielded and where as its a GENERAL election. Comparisons to how many candidates anyone had or didn't have is totally and utterly irrelevant.

Fptp is what we have so that's the way it works.

However, those advocating a 'fairer' system of votes cast have a point. To argue SNP only stood in less seats doesn't make a jot of difference. They have the right to stand in more, they chose not to. Of the UK population as a whole, of those that voted, the figures LOOK unfair.

Sorry, Rich. I'm afraid you're wrong on this. It DOES make a whole 'jot' of difference - it's precisely the point. They received 1.5 million votes out of a possible 3million that were cast in the constituencies in which they were standing. That is the highest percentage of the standing vote of ANY party.

England gets 533 seats, Scotland 59, Wales 40 and NI 18. This division is based on population, and that is fair - you don't hear Scotland, Wales and NI whinging that they have much less seats combined than does England. UKIP challenged for over 600 of those seats, affording them the opportunity to gain around 45 million votes. If the SNP challenged outside of Scotland, it's likely they actually would've increased their overall vote, but any popular gains in England, Wales or NI would not translate to seats. Let's not forget that UKIP failed to poll as the most popular party in over 600 constituencies - failing to be even the second or third most popular in a large swathe of them, and averaging around 6000 votes per constituency (a much lower average than the SNP).

The figures in favour of the SNP in relation to UKIP look unfair if you're being ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, of the processes involved in a General Election. As it stands, the disparity makes complete and utter sense and isn't unfair in the slightest. UKIP will continue to spin it that way in order to further propel English nationalism against those pesky Scots.

 

[decigallen]

I should add, I'm entirely in favour of PR but ONLY constituency based PR where each candidate must still fight for their constituency, rather than a fanciful idea that a proportion of seats are awarded based on nationwide % of vote.

The thing is, constituency based PR would've made little difference to the outcome in Scotland.

 

[dejongj]

So in 2011 you all had a say in this and the result was....

On a turnout of 42.2 per cent, 68 per cent voted No and 32 per cent voted Yes.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

Sorry, Rich. I'm afraid you're wrong on this. It DOES make a whole 'jot' of difference - it's precisely the point. They received 1.5 million votes out of a possible 3million that were cast in the constituencies in which they were standing. That is the highest percentage of the standing vote of ANY party.

England gets 533 seats, Scotland 59, Wales 40 and NI 18. This division is based on population, and that is fair - you don't hear Scotland, Wales and NI whinging that they have much less seats combined than does England. UKIP challenged for over 600 of those seats, affording them the opportunity to gain around 45 million votes. If the SNP challenged outside of Scotland, it's likely they actually would've increased their overall vote, but any popular gains in England, Wales or NI would not translate to seats. Let's not forget that UKIP failed to poll as the most popular party in over 600 constituencies - failing to be even the second or third most popular in a large swathe of them, and averaging around 6000 votes per constituency (a much lower average than the SNP).

The figures in favour of the SNP in relation to UKIP look unfair if you're being ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, of the processes involved in a General Election. As it stands, the disparity makes complete and utter sense and isn't unfair in the slightest. UKIP will continue to spin it that way in order to further propel English nationalism against those pesky Scots.

No, my friend you are wrong!

I am not a ukip voter and don't give a stuff about them and nor am I a supporter particularly of pr or av or fptp either. But we have the system we have. I know that. I get it. I am not complaining about how many MPs the SNP have. I know how they won them and good luck to them if that's how the constituencies they stood in wanted them. Ok?

Regardless of all that. What some people are finding hard to understand and justify is the simple national statistics of total votes counted for each party and if you can't understand that then that's a shame.

Nationally, as a whole voting population, ukip gained 4.5m votes and 1 MP. SNP 1.5m votes and 56 or whatever. Nationally, to some people, that isn't fair. It doesn't matter how many seats anyone stood in or where. Those are the cold hard NATIONAL stats. If you don't get that this is why some people find that tough then wow.

If SNP stood nationally rather than just regionally, most sensible people accept they wouldn't have got that many more votes for obvious reasons. But so what? It's not the point. It is irrelevant. They didn't.

I understand the current system so why do you keep quoting that at me? I get it, I know it and I'm personally fine with it. Some people for reasons described above don't like it and I understand why they don't. That's it. End of. God it's so simple....for some obviously more than others. My discussion, for the record has actually no regional base whatsoever. I am happy the scots, Northern Irish, Welsh and English got what they voted for. It has nothing to do with any "pesky Scottish" attitudes or any other country based fervour.

 

[POAH]

if we don't care about seats then, in scotland UKIP got 47,000 votes, SNP got 1.45 million.

but it does matter about seats but you don't seem to be able to grasp that (like the rest of the people that seem to think UKIP should have some more MPs) just seems like sour grapes to me

No, my friend you are wrong!

I am not a ukip voter and don't give a stuff about them and nor am I a supporter particularly of pr or av or fptp either. But we have the system we have. I know that. I get it. I am not complaining about how many MPs the SNP have. I know how they won them and good luck to them if that's how the constituencies they stood in wanted them. Ok?

Regardless of all that. What some people are finding hard to understand and justify is the simple national statistics of total votes counted for each party and if you can't understand that then that's a shame.

Nationally, as a whole voting population, ukip gained 4.5m votes and 1 MP. SNP 1.5m votes and 56 or whatever. Nationally, to some people, that isn't fair. It doesn't matter how many seats anyone stood in or where. Those are the cold hard NATIONAL stats. If you don't get that this is why some people find that tough then wow.

If SNP stood nationally rather than just regionally, most sensible people accept they wouldn't have got that many more votes for obvious reasons. But so what? It's not the point. It is irrelevant. They didn't.

I understand the current system so why do you keep quoting that at me? I get it, I know it and I'm personally fine with it. Some people for reasons described above don't like it and I understand why they don't. That's it. End of. God it's so simple....for some obviously more than others. My discussion, for the record has actually no regional base whatsoever. I am happy the scots, Northern Irish, Welsh and English got what they voted for. It has nothing to do with any "pesky Scottish" attitudes or any other country based fervour.

 

[Rich_Ellis]

if we don't care about seats then, in scotland UKIP got 47,000 votes, SNP got 1.45 million.

but it does matter about seats but you don't seem to be able to grasp that (like the rest of the people that seem to think UKIP should have some more MPs) just seems like sour grapes to me

You obviously can't read. Staggering, just staggering.

 

[Dale_tem]

He is confused as in the middle of saying you don't agree, you list all the points of someone who doesn't agree.

 

[decigallen]

I've read your post twice and fail to see how I am wrong...

 

[Deleted member 49549]

..........

Nationally, as a whole voting population, ukip gained 4.5m votes and 1 MP. SNP 1.5m votes and 56 or whatever. Nationally, to some people, that isn't fair. It doesn't matter how many seats anyone stood in or where. Those are the cold hard NATIONAL stats. If you don't get that this is why some people find that tough then wow.

.........

Are you saying it is only the national total that matters, irrelevant of how many seats a party contested?

 

[Rich_Ellis]

Are you saying it is only the national total that matters, irrelevant of how many seats a party contested?

Yes, I have said i don't personally have any problem with how many seats anyone has won with the current system but that those wanting a different one would feel hard done by and why number of seats stood for, under that system would be irrelevant.

I do understand why some people are a little uncomfortable with 1.5m votes = 58 MPs, 4.5m votes = 1 MP, 1.1m votes = 1 MP. If the system was different (to some, fairer) those MP figures would change. It was a NATIONAL election, meaning UK wide. I am NOT Scotland or SNP bashing. I am happy with the results as is, personally, and wouldn't change fptp. I also accept that if it was a diff system and votes were counted on a NATIONAL basis then the SNP would probably have fielded many more candidates across the UK. However, we all realise they probably wouldn't have garnered too many more votes than they got already due to their agenda (however I equally accept we don't know that). We also know that votes cast would probably be wildly different as people wouldn't necessarily need to tactically vote.....but.....looking at the cold hard national voting figures I get why SOME people think the system 'odd'.

I don't know how else to explain it...to me its crystal clear why some feel its unfair. Numbers of seats stood in when counting a national vote is irrelevant end of.

He is confused as in the middle of saying you don't agree, you list all the points of someone who doesn't agree.

What? I don't agree and then list why i don't agree?

He also then reads my post that includes comments like "I'm personally fine with the current system and have no problem with it" and making it clear I am happy the Scots got what they voted for etc and I still get a comment about "sour grapes" and "typical comments from UKIP supporters" (which incidentally I'm not, never have been and never will be but hey, easy to 'label' me that and then job done eh?) Pathetic.

I've read your post twice and fail to see how I am wrong...

Because you have just set out the current system. I know the current system thanks. Its clear. I get it. But the people who feel its unfair want a different system and I was explaining why number of seats stood for was irrelevant in a national vote. However I give up.

 

[Byker28i]

And any other party would have stuck to all their promises?
Honest politicians/parties don't exist.

Or didn't fully understand the state the country was in until they got full access to the books? Then situations change.

We could of course go back to all the promises new labour made then didn't keep, but to be honest that would be pointless.

 

[dejongj]

@Rich Ellis. I fully understand your point. On the face of it, it doesn't seen right. However those have been the rules for a very long time and only four years ago the electorate had a chance to change it for this election (and subsequent ones) and two thirds of the electorate decided to keep the current system.

The chance was there to change it and it was not taken up. I merely think it is not fruitful to look at the what ifs of such decision, instead each party should focus on fighting for the individual seats.

 

[Dale_tem]

What? I don't agree and then list why i don't agree?

I didn't say you don't agree. I said...

you list all the points of someone who doesn't agree.