Election today - please vote

[ChrisCooper]

I also very much agree that we don't have a truly representative system, often it's more like a 5 year dictatorship. Every 5 years we just vote for more of the same, or something a little different. The whole talk of coalitions really just goes to show how stubbon the 2 party system is going to be to get rid of, in fact if anything this election has strengthened the two party system as the two main parties hold more seats between them now than they did before, it's just they are more equally distributed. Even proportional representation doesn't really deal with this, as it just creates more smaller parties, who will likely end up forming coalitions either amoungst themselves or with the big parties to give them any significant power. A better system would be where each MP fought for their own issues that they agree on (and that their constituents have elected them on the basis of), regardless of their party. Why should MPs for any party have to compromise their values for the sake of a coalition? It's funny how they are quick to point out the fundemental differences between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and David Cameron has already made it quite clear where he will and won't be prepared to move. There will also be big differences between Lib Dems and Labour too. Should either party compromise on things like ID cards, Trident etc? Even things like voting reform, Lib Dems want PR, Labour wants changes but will unlikely want to go that far. Without guarenteeing almost full and permenant support from the Lib Dems, Labour would likely loose in PR. Before you know it they merge into a "Centre Left Progressive Party", against the Centre Right Conservatives, and we're back to a 2 party system.

 

[Greenback]

One thing that has been mentioned about the possibility of no formal coalition is that it could lead to every piece of legislation being debated on its merits and voted on accordingly. I don't know if this would necessarily work, though.

 

[yorksrob]

Surprised to see about the queues; where I was both voting and telling it was dead! Going by past elections (both local and national) my constituency has above average turnouts so maybe we are better prepared?

So was I. I was polling clerk in a busy inner-city area during the 2005 general election, and whilst there was a bit of a peak just before closing (with one or two first time voters who had been to the wrong station) there certainly weren't too many to shut in so they could finish up at the end. As I understand it, overall turnout was only about 5 per cent higher this time than last so I don't see what went wrong.

As for somewhere running out of ballot papers, that's really dropping a goolie. Even in local elections where we could expect well under 50% turnout, we always had enough to cover everybody on our section of the register.

 

[theblackwatch]

I don't think any of the major parties can claim they did well in the election:

Labour - managed to lose 91 seats. About time they realised people aren't happy with their handling of the country.

Tories - with the recession and other problems the country has had and is in, should have been able to walk this election rather like 1983. Couldn't even get a majority though. Maybe they failed to realise some people have long memories?

Lib Dems - Despite doing well in the TV broadcast, lost 5 seats. However, did increase its overall vote. Perhaps their campaign should have been targetted at more specific marginal areas.

 

[me123]

SNP are going to be in talks with Labour. In all honesty, I doubt that their demands would be readily met so I don't think much would come from this. Nevertheless, as an SNP supporter, I really would not be happy to see them attempt to enter a coalition with Labour. I'd rather see them standing up for Scotland's interests in a minority government situation, regardless of the party at the helm.

A Tory government, minority or coalition, will see the union crippled. They have no mandate to govern up here, coming in fourth place. They will hit Scotland harder, as happened with Thatcher. They have nothing to lose up here in all reality. From the English perspective, the result means that you probably won't get support for Scottish MPs sitting out on devolved issues (as I think should happen), as this will provide a huge boost to Conservatives and may give them a majority for devolved issues. The English are even more ****ed with us just now than usual!

 

[Geezertronic]

I was actually surprised to notice how little the Conservatives had/have in Scotland (and maybe Wales & N.Ireland for that matter)

 

[royaloak]

Well I am surprised how many seats Labour retained, I expected them to lose a lot more.
Expected the Lib Dems to do better, but that is why they want proportional representation, possibly the immigration thing put people off, it did me.

 

[yorkie]

Brilliant news from Brighton http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666445.stm the Green Party are very pro-sustainable transport, including rail, so that is very good news indeed.

I just hope that the Conservatives, who are likely to be in power in some capacity, don't cancel rail projects and starve the industry of investment, as in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s.

 

[me123]

Well I am surprised how many seats Labour retained, I expected them to lose a lot more.

Labour had a simple tactic in Scotland. The entire election was campaigned as follows:

"No one matters except us and the Tories. You must vote us to keep them out."

And they fell for it and elected 41 chimps in red rosettes. Of course, it hasn't done anything whatsoever to keep the Tories out, because the election is fought in marginal English seats.

 

[ladydsm]

Labour had a simple tactic in Scotland. The entire election was campaigned as follows:

"No one matters except us and the Tories. You must vote us to keep them out."

And they fell for it and elected 41 chimps in red rosettes. Of course, it hasn't done anything whatsoever to keep the Tories out, because the election is fought in marginal English seats.

without those 41 chimps you would have a Tory government

 

[CarterUSM]

SNP are going to be in talks with Labour. In all honesty, I doubt that their demands would be readily met so I don't think much would come from this. Nevertheless, as an SNP supporter, I really would not be happy to see them attempt to enter a coalition with Labour. I'd rather see them standing up for Scotland's interests in a minority government situation, regardless of the party at the helm.

A Tory government, minority or coalition, will see the union crippled. They have no mandate to govern up here, coming in fourth place. They will hit Scotland harder, as happened with Thatcher. They have nothing to lose up here in all reality. From the English perspective, the result means that you probably won't get support for Scottish MPs sitting out on devolved issues (as I think should happen), as this will provide a huge boost to Conservatives and may give them a majority for devolved issues. The English are even more ****ed with us just now than usual!

They indeed do have a mandate to govern up here, as Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland like the other Home Nations, The West Lothian question is indeed a flaw, and should be dealt with, mostly thanks to Scotlands separate judicial and law structure that was agreed in 1707. The current First Minister of Scotland, and indeed future ministers would do well to concentrate on Scotlands legislature and specific needs, as is their remit, instead of swanning around like a President of Caledonia. Salmond isn't even an MP anymore. Incidently, Northern Ireland never return any MP's from the main Westminister parties, does that mean the UK government has no mandate there, and never has either?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Labour had a simple tactic in Scotland. The entire election was campaigned as follows:

"No one matters except us and the Tories. You must vote us to keep them out."

And they fell for it and elected 41 chimps in red rosettes. Of course, it hasn't done anything whatsoever to keep the Tories out, because the election is fought in marginal English seats.

They are quite correct, nobody does matter except the Conservatives and Labour, the list of governments from the past 100 plus years testify to this, the rest are fringe parties at best unfortunately.

 

[Mojo]

I just hope that the Conservatives, who are likely to be in power in some capacity, don't cancel rail projects and starve the industry of investment, as in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s.

What, you mean like how they did when all those light rail schemes were built and the biggest line and station openings/reopenings programme since the railways were nationalised?

 

[me123]

Carter, you will find that Scotland is its own country and has, amongst other things, its own laws and totally different issues to other parts of the UK. Large parts of Scots law are still controlled from Westminster, and issues (such as immigration) where our differences are rarely voiced are also still reserved. The Tories will be greeted with hostility up here as they came in fourth place in the election, both by number of seats and number of votes cast. And no wonder; despite their poor performance they will still have control over parts of Scots law! If you go back to Thatcher, who also had a weak performance North of the border, you'll see what happens. The poll tax is the perfect example of her abuse of Scots law.

In all reality, Scotland would never have returned many Tory candidates, so a vote for any others (SNP, Lib Dems, Scottish Greens, BNP, Scottish Trade Union & Socialists, Scottish Communists, Independents...) would still have resulted in a hung parliament, albeit with different dynamics.

The 41 labour MPs were elected mostly as an anti-Tory vote. Most people voted Labour to block the Tories. They were misled, as anyone who looks at previous election results would notice straight away that elections are mostly won and loss in the English marginal seats, and Scotland's allegiance to Labour often means we have little effect on the overall final result. The Labour block are going to have very little power as it is looking an unlikely that they will form the government. On the other hand, in this hung parliament situation (which we all knew was going to happen, and that Scotland could have done nothing to block), a vote for more SNP candidates would have given Scotland a stronger block in Westminster in the case of a minority government, as they're going to have more bargaining power than Labour. Alternatively, a vote for Lib Dems would have given us a pretty strong say regardless of who had the most seats in a hung parliament.

 

[CarterUSM]

Me123, I think I did mention that Scotland has it's own laws and judical system in one of my previous posts, but you cannot go around saying a party has no mandate to govern when it is very much part of the UK. I'll grant you Scotland is constitutionally a country in it's own right, but the point of union was to make us all work together as ONE nation for the benefit of all concerned. I'm wasn't a great lover of the Scottish Parliament and I will admit I voted against it in the referendum at the time, but i've come round to the the view that it has eased the workload of westminister exceedingly so and that there just wasn't enough time for Scottish questions in the commons before. I am also not a great fan of the SNP so we are no doubt going to differ on our views. Viewed with hostility or not, the people of the United Kingdom have spoken, scotland is not the issue here, the needs of the nation as a whole are, so the little scotlanders, of which there aren't that many as you will probably find out at the next scottish parliamentary elections, should concentrate on those particular needs and issues of Scotland instead of shouting about how it as all not fair. I know how thatcher is also viewed in Scotland, but David Cameron was quite flattering towards us, wooing us, and rightly so, so let's wait and see what happens before we jump on the anti-tory bandwagon. Lets concentrate on the bigger picture, independence for scotland doesn't really seem to have that much support either, I do not have the figures but the SNP's 'national conversation' has fallen by the wayside due to apparent lack of interest from the electorate. Obviously no offence intended mate, and I also did not vote for the conservatives either, if that is what your thinking.

 

[me123]

The fact of the matter is that, without a Scottish mandate, the Tories will struggle to get any approval for their actions up here.

The danger of having a party without a mandate to govern Scotland, given our unique situation, means that the Conservatives, with a majority, could do anything they want to Scotland with no risk. That's exactly what happened with Mrs Thatcher and the poll tax. I certainly feared that an outright Tory majority (with only one seat in Scotland) would have the Conservatives disproportionately cutting Scotland's budget with nothing to lose. Now the Tories don't have a majority just now. But a coalition with the Lib Dems could have a similar effect, even with the large number of LD safe seats in the Highlands and Isles.

This is why I'm talking about the lack of mandate. They have not done enough to convince Scotland that they are the best party. Without Scottish MPs, they now have nothing to lose in Scotland (well, one seat won't make a big difference) and can do what they like with no real effect to themselves. This is despite Scotland whole-heartily rejecting the party. They came fourth. No other country in the world would have a party governing it when three parties polled better in an election!

Now, I'm not saying that I don't want them in or anything. On the contrary, I think you may have misunderstood my above post. Of course, the Tories "won" the election (as much as is possible given a hung parliament). Consequently, yes I do think they should be the ones to set up a government before Labour. I think the best outcome for Scotland in these circumstances would be to have the Conservatives hold a minority government. That way Scottish cuts can be kept in line, as the opposition from SNP (and, hopefully, Labour) would not allow it. I'm not saying no cuts, I'm just saying that cuts should be fair.

If there is a coalition, I would hope that the Conservatives respect Scots law and apply any cuts fairly across the UK. Ironically, if they do not govern fairly, you will see the union weakened further which is not what the Conservatives want to see (at least not until the oil runs out).

FWIW, I don't think a Con-Lib coalition is looking likely. Far too many differences between the two.

 

[313103]

Well in my little area where the tories havent ruled since 1964 and despite all the flack Labour has had, my Labour MP who is also pro rail got over 24,000 votes that is 16,000 ahead of the nearest candidate (Lib-Dem) and a whooping 18,000 votes ahead of the 'party for change'. The BNP dont even bother coming to this area and as in most cases they never stand. A 3.3% swing Lib-Dem to Labour.
,
Also and once again against a background of anti 'Labour' from the media (and there i thought that the media were anti tory!) my council went from No Overall Control to Labour.

 

[Dai.]

Brilliant news from Brighton http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666445.stm the Green Party are very pro-sustainable transport, including rail, so that is very good news indeed.

I just hope that the Conservatives, who are likely to be in power in some capacity, don't cancel rail projects and starve the industry of investment, as in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s.

Brilliant news for me, I don't live near Brighton but I'm a huge supporter of the Green Party.

 

[CarterUSM]

The fact of the matter is that, without a Scottish mandate, the Tories will struggle to get any approval for their actions up here.

The danger of having a party without a mandate to govern Scotland, given our unique situation, means that the Conservatives, with a majority, could do anything they want to Scotland with no risk. That's exactly what happened with Mrs Thatcher and the poll tax. I certainly feared that an outright Tory majority (with only one seat in Scotland) would have the Conservatives disproportionately cutting Scotland's budget with nothing to lose. Now the Tories don't have a majority just now. But a coalition with the Lib Dems could have a similar effect, even with the large number of LD safe seats in the Highlands and Isles.

This is why I'm talking about the lack of mandate. They have not done enough to convince Scotland that they are the best party. Without Scottish MPs, they now have nothing to lose in Scotland (well, one seat won't make a big difference) and can do what they like with no real effect to themselves. This is despite Scotland whole-heartily rejecting the party. They came fourth. No other country in the world would have a party governing it when three parties polled better in an election!

Now, I'm not saying that I don't want them in or anything. On the contrary, I think you may have misunderstood my above post. Of course, the Tories "won" the election (as much as is possible given a hung parliament). Consequently, yes I do think they should be the ones to set up a government before Labour. I think the best outcome for Scotland in these circumstances would be to have the Conservatives hold a minority government. That way Scottish cuts can be kept in line, as the opposition from SNP (and, hopefully, Labour) would not allow it. I'm not saying no cuts, I'm just saying that cuts should be fair.

If there is a coalition, I would hope that the Conservatives respect Scots law and apply any cuts fairly across the UK. Ironically, if they do not govern fairly, you will see the union weakened further which is not what the Conservatives want to see (at least not until the oil runs out).

FWIW, I don't think a Con-Lib coalition is looking likely. Far too many differences between the two.

Fair enough mate, a well constructed post. A minority government is an interesting scenario also, somebody said something about more constructive debate, though it shouldn't really make a difference in the first place in my book, that is what MP's are paid to do anyway!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Brilliant news from Brighton http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666445.stm the Green Party are very pro-sustainable transport, including rail, so that is very good news indeed.

I just hope that the Conservatives, who are likely to be in power in some capacity, don't cancel rail projects and starve the industry of investment, as in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s.

This is very interesting to me.How has the green party managed to bag this seat? Was it local issues, a real attempt at change from the electorate, or just down to demographics?

 

[yorkie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/alfie-mckenzie-14-year-old-voter

Ooops! Someone's going to get told off for that!

 

[Lampshade]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/alfie-mckenzie-14-year-old-voter

Ooops! Someone's going to get told off for that!

Oof, bit of a blunder there.

Not that it mattered from a voting point of view, I live in that constituency and it's pretty much a Conservative safe seat

 

[Mojo]

However, the Conservatives have got a clear majority in England, winning 297 (298 if the remaining constituency goes the same way as last time) of 533 seats, which is more than enough for a working majority. So what happens there?

 

[Ascot]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/alfie-mckenzie-14-year-old-voter

Ooops! Someone's going to get told off for that!

It'd be the house holder who signed the form who would get the worst of it. If they filled in the form adding A Mr Young Person and was not indicated he was under 18 then that's illegal.

 

[royaloak]

Which is probably where 99% of these things come from, now if the house occupiers were fined for giving false information then it MAY put an end to it.

I mean easy way for the t##ts to get on telly when 2 year old Sophie gets a poling card, well of course she will, mummy put her on the form as being 18 years old :roll:

 

[me123]

But I thought you could sign up when you're 16? I know you can in Scotland, as long as you indicate that you're either 16 or 17 on the form. Of course, that wouldn't explain a 14 year old getting a polling card! Could he have filled out the form online, with some false information, by himself? Not impossible given that he seems to be a politically involved young man.

Why didn't his mother return the card or inform them of their error?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, the Conservatives have got a clear majority in England, winning 297 (298 if the remaining constituency goes the same way as last time) of 533 seats, which is more than enough for a working majority. So what happens there?

Well, I know there's a lot of English Tory supporters who want to rebuild Hadrian's Wall...

The Conservatives always wanted to keep MPs from the devolved countries out of devolved debates. At the moment, the Labour MPs for Scotland all sit in on and can vote on English health and education debates. I believe this is totally unfair, as do most English people from what I gather. I must, of course, stress that SNP certainly do not sit in on these debates. I don't know about Liberals and Tories.

The problem is that this probably will not happen under the current parliament, as the Liberals and Labour would likely vote this down (because this would decrease their power in this situation). I certainly hope, however, that it does happen - aside from the inequalities this creates, I certainly don't like seeing my MP wasting his time on devolved issues.

 

[CarterUSM]

Well, I know there's a lot of English Tory supporters who want to rebuild Hadrian's Wall...

That would put a substantial part of the far north of England into Scotland!!

 

[me123]

That phrase comes off some right wing newspapers comments boards on this matter!

 

[CarterUSM]

That phrase comes off some right wing newspapers comments boards on this matter!

I assure you my comment was in jest.

 

[Old Timer]

I just hope that the Conservatives, who are likely to be in power in some capacity, don't cancel rail projects and starve the industry of investment, as in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s.

The 80s was a time of investment in the Railways. Care to illustrate your comments with some solid examples ?