Who will win the General Election?

[lo36789]

Well the polls got that a bit wrong.

Anyway I would have said that the polls previously suggested that Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens would have been a majority. Are you suggesting that wouldn't have been a left wing majority?

Can't believe we might be heading for an outright majority. Mind you the predictions I have seen are suggesting UKIP won't pick anything else up but from what I can make out Thanot South isnt in yet. At the moment that prediction has 327 for Conservatives

[Darlogramps]

Anyway I would have said that the polls previously suggested that Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens would have been a majority. Are you suggesting that wouldn't have been a left wing majority?

Given the opinion polls have proven to be massively wrong, yes I would suggest that.

You can't try and base an argument on polls that have proven to be hugely inaccurate.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Pete the best place to live is a marginal. Governments like to spend money in them to bribe you to vote for them.

[lo36789]

Wey exactly. My previous comment was based on those polls - I am certainly left minded but I actually am going to do better out of Tories I think (certainly going to change my tax bracket) - assuming my health doesn't deteriorate in the near future and my career doesn't take a dive!

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Don't worry there bro. You bankers will always be well looked after by this lot

[Spyman]

The election really highlights how broken our voting system is.

UKIP get twice as many votes as the SNP but have one seat to the SNPs 56. I don't like UKIP but how can a party with such a chunk of the vote end up with so little representation? The Greens had almost as many supporters as the SNP, and again just have one seat.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Ask the lib dems. They went on about it for years, got their referendum and lost.

[Spyman]

Ask the lib dems. They went on about it for years, got their referendum and lost.

The referendum was on single transferrable vote against first past the post, wasn't it - rather than proportional representation? I'm not sure it would've made much difference to what I'm talking about.

[Darlo_Pete]

If we had PR then we'd never get a party winning an overall majority and we'd forever be stuck with coalitions, like a lot of European countries. Having a party winning an absolute majority, is far better for the markets and the stability of the country.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

And if the communists ever got in Pete?

[lo36789]

Germany must hate the constant coalitions, they're economy is a mess isn't it.

[Beano]

If we had PR then we'd never get a party winning an overall majority and we'd forever be stuck with coalitions, like a lot of European countries. Having a party winning an absolute majority, is far better for the markets and the stability of the country.

A total myth peddled by the right wing media and bought by the gullible.

The strongest economy in Europe - coalition government.

Why anyone would want any government elected by only 36% of the population and to actively not want representation of all citizens?

[Darlo_Pete]

And if the communists ever got in Pete?

Whichever party wins with a majority deserves their chance to govern, whether it's the communists or any other party. The GE certainly served up a major political surprise.

[OHDFC]

And if the communists ever got in Pete?

Whichever party wins with a majority deserves their chance to govern, whether it's the communists or any other party. The GE certainly served up a major political surprise.

But no one won a majority (for the aviodance of doubt - a majority is 50+% of the vote)

[Darlogramps]

And if the communists ever got in Pete?

Whichever party wins with a majority deserves their chance to govern, whether it's the communists or any other party. The GE certainly served up a major political surprise.

But no one won a majority (for the aviodance of doubt - a majority is 50+% of the vote)

No, according to the British constitution a majority in Parliament is 50% of the seats.

You're right in that no party won 50% of the vote share (no party has for decades).

But under the regressive and undemocratic British electoral system, all that matters is the number of seats.

The share of the vote is frankly irrelevant under this system.

Sadly, we'll never get a more democratic system while the Tories and Labour remain the big two and consistently get majorities.

[Darlo_Pete]

You can only win by the rules that are in place.

[Bogratsteve]

I see there are riots tonight over the result in London, sad state of affairs

[THE PRINCE OF WALES]

i take it from all your threads Pete,your a Tory?

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Will certainly be interesting when they make strikes illegal more or less when their mandate is 36% of a 66% turnout. Should be an interesting court challenge there.

Twats!!!

[Darlogramps]

Will certainly be interesting when they make strikes illegal more or less when their mandate is 36% of a 66% turnout. Should be an interesting court challenge there.

Twats!!!

Like the unions who go on strike on a 40% turnout?

There's hypocrisy on both sides. All as bad as each other.

[Darlo_Pete]

i take it from all your threads Pete,your a Tory?

I don't comment on my politics, as a Presiding Officer I have to remain neutral. How are you my old mucker, as I heard you weren't well? It's taken you a long time to get over the shock of England beating you in Cardiff.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Will certainly be interesting when they make strikes illegal more or less when their mandate is 36% of a 66% turnout. Should be an interesting court challenge there.

Twats!!!

Like the unions who go on strike on a 40% turnout?

There's hypocrisy on both sides. All as bad as each other.

When and which Union was that? Plus they must have got more than 50% of those voted.

Our last ballot was a 90%er

[THE PRINCE OF WALES]

My Tory friend pete,I'm getting better thanks pete looking forward to the new new season.

[Darlo_Pete]

It'll be good to see you again, take care.

[Darlogramps]

Will certainly be interesting when they make strikes illegal more or less when their mandate is 36% of a 66% turnout. Should be an interesting court challenge there.

Twats!!!

Like the unions who go on strike on a 40% turnout?

There's hypocrisy on both sides. All as bad as each other.

When and which Union was that? Plus they must have got more than 50% of those voted.

Our last ballot was a 90%er

PCS - March 2013 :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21661083

61% in favour on a 28% turnout. My maths isn't great, but that's around 18% of the overall members who actually voted for a strike (or put another way, more than 4 in 5 who did not).

Same union 12 months later - 61% in favour on a 32% turnout. Or the NUT vote last year with a 33% turnout, or the ATL, with a 35% turnout: http://news.sky.com/story/862314/do-the ... -to-strike

There may be more, but some unions (such as the FBU) don't release the full figures (I wonder why!)

So that does raise the issue of whether it's legitimate for them to go on strike with so little of the membership actually voting for it (although your point about having 50%+ of the vote is perfectly valid - if people didn't want to go on strike, they would have voted against).

I know this will provoke your wrath Fatty, but I'm in favour of there being a certain level of turnout the ballot has to reach before the strike can go ahead. It stops the ideologically-driven union bosses (many of whom are on rather healthy salaries I might add) calling a ballot and manipulating it to their own political ends.

That said, it has to be balanced against ideologically-driven governments trying to limit union influence.

But again, to use my earlier point, if members care enough about the issue, surely reaching the turnout level won't be an issue?

[Darlo_Pete]

I think the Conservatives are planning to bring in legislation that means strikes cannot go ahead unless a certain percentage have voted in the strike ballot, I think 50% has been mentioned. In which case a whole load of strikes that go ahead now, wouldn't in the future.

[Beano]

I think the Conservatives are planning to bring in legislation that means strikes cannot go ahead unless a certain percentage have voted in the strike ballot, I think 50% has been mentioned. In which case a whole load of strikes that go ahead now, wouldn't in the future.

Ironic, considering they'll govern with 36% of the public vote.

But, if you take turnout into consideration, is only actually 24% of the population.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Not gonna go all wrath of Khan gramps lol.

If people don't vote against then it's implied that they agree with the result. Therefore those ballots may have had a low turn out but the implied reality is that the ballots were actually higher than those percentages stated.

I know I've opened myself up to the implied consent of an MP but in the same way as they've opened themselves up to the same argument.

Another point is that some people are actually scared to go against their employers with threats of the sack or disciplinary action which is actually against the law if the ballot has been conducted lawfully.

[lo36789]

If people don't vote against then it's implied that they agree with the result.

No sorry that is the wrong way round for me. Voting is needed to change from the status quo. The status quo is turning up to work and not being on strike, and arguably it is also the incumbent government.

If people don't vote in favour of something it is because they don't feel strongly enough to turn out to vote for it. If that is the case then things should carry on as they are if people aren't voting either way that is effectively a suggestion they are happy with things the way they are.

On that logic again there were 40%ish of the population who weren't bothered enough either way about a tory lead government to turn out to change it.

I have been amazed that the political commentators on facebook seem to have flipped from "isn't democracy great, get out and vote this is your chance to change things" and as soon as it doesn't work out for them it is all about the voting system, seemingly forgetting that AV wasn't just thrown out the door it was drop kicked over the top of the stand.

As for PR I would love someone to come forward with a clear view on how you would determine who those representatives are and who they are deemed to be representing?

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Sorry bud but I disagree with you there. If you are asked if to go on strike or action short of a strike by your Union then if you don't reply you are agreeing with them that you will abide with whatever is decided. If you don't want to then you will vote against. By not voting you are agreeing.