UK Election 2015

[Pestneb]

Well I am not even allowed to vote in this country so it doesn't matter what I think or whether or not I approve of an MP's actions. :P

 

I know I disagree with some of the current MP's ideas, but even if I told him about it, that is not going to change his views (as I have no say in anything).

 

haha, well I don't know who your MP is, but an MP won't change his ideas if he only ever hears his own being reinforced. If you chat with him it may not cause a U change, but it would give him a different point of view and could well inform his voting on other subjects. Of course it wouldn't be democratic if just one person had a huge sway over him, but I would hope he would have an interest in your views and opinions and would be able to justify his ideas to you.

 

But as you have no vote a certain amount of apathy is pretty justifiable for you in your current situation.

[Rummy]

Tax cuts are too appealing to the general public. Unfortunately, your wages won't rise, you won't be able to get a doctor's appointment, and if you do, you'll probably have to pay for it. Tax cuts - not necessarily a good thing.

 

Even if Labour made things a little bit better, it would have been progress. Better than the pile of crap we've got now.

 

Tbh my real biggest concern from all of this is only for the NHS and its future, just not sure I like the potential for privatisation within it.

[Pestneb]

Tbh my real biggest concern from all of this is only for the NHS and its future, just not sure I like the potential for privatisation within it.

 

And I think that is something that you need to make sure your local MP is aware of, and that you hold them accountable.

[Mr-Paul]

Pestneb, you have too much faith in an MP listening to people and not following the party whip! I do agree though that people should engage with their MPs more, and with grassroots politics in general.

 

If there was a vote on electoral reform, which there won't be, no way would it be a free vote for the Tories.

[Pestneb]

Pestneb, you have too much faith in an MP listening to people and not following the party whip! I do agree though that people should engage with their MPs more, and with grassroots politics in general.

 

If there was a vote on electoral reform, which there won't be, no way would it be a free vote for the Tories.

 

haha, sure I do come across that way, don't worry I'm not quite that naive. I just think much like voting, if you don't engage you don't really have a foot to stand on when it comes to complaining.

 

I think the problem with electoral reform is that it fixes one point of injustice and in doing so creates a new one. I think if parties weakened in terms of influencing the way MP's vote, particularly the existence of the party whip (I mean that conjures up enough of an image of injustice..) the system would be a lot truer, but again, can't see that happening any time soon!

[Grazza]

Can the voting system be changed? Like, how would it ever come up that they would change it? How did the referendum for the Alternative Vote come about?

 

The day after the 2010 General Election, the Lib Dems held the balance of power (and at the time were very keen on voting reform). If I recall correctly, Gordon Brown offered to implement AV immediately, and have a referendum on PR. David Cameron merely offered a referendum on AV. Due to the arithmetic, they had to go with Cameron/The Conservatives, but that's the sort of situation in which enough MPs would agree to a referendum.

[Rummy]

And I think that is something that you need to make sure your local MP is aware of, and that you hold them accountable.

 

I wrote him a couple letters quite a few years ago, and also more recently when there was the issues of Lewisham being closed due to the South London Healthcare Trust being disbanded etc. Tbh I found his responses a bit limp really.

Looking into it now the UCC at my local hospital, which replaced the A&E that was shut a few years back now, is currently run by an 'NHS Partnership' called http://The Hurley Group - though I must admit I've no idea what that is(apparently headed by a partnership of GPs, but I don't know where the line draws in terms of interest). Something for me to research a little more now!

 

Pestneb, you have too much faith in an MP listening to people and not following the party whip! I do agree though that people should engage with their MPs more, and with grassroots politics in general.

 

If there was a vote on electoral reform, which there won't be, no way would it be a free vote for the Tories.

 

That's one of my concerns about people thinking they just vote of their own accord all the time. Now, my politics knowledge is pretty basic so I'm likely wrong, but it was my understanding that the party whip encourages party MPs to vote, and along a certain course in some cases too?

[Pestneb]

My understanding is that on some "key" issues the whips go round and encourage mps to vote the correct way. I don't know what dark arts they employ never having been in the situation myself, but I think essentially if an mp rebels too strongly the party can kick them out, putting their seat in jeopardy. In effect they can threaten to give the mp the sack (although ultimately that mp may still retain the seat and take it from the party).

 

Possibly in a weak majority such as we have right now that is less likely to happen because if enough people rebel the party can't afford the lost seats. We will see. I'm sure there is a lot more to it than I understand, but in terms of my own position I look at the mp's track record come election time. If they followed the whip's prompting or not, if they made too many votes I strongly disagree with I won't be voting them back in (there tend to be just a few key votes I will consider my red lines).

 

I wrote him a couple letters quite a few years ago, and also more recently when there was the issues of Lewisham being closed due to the South London Healthcare Trust being disbanded etc. Tbh I found his responses a bit limp really.

 

I think unfortunately they have to be guarded about what they put in print, even face to face now after a few tabloid stings, because if they are honest and say something headline worthy....

 

Not against a couple of the stings that have taken place to uncover corruption though, they are some of the few I agree with, we need to kill corruption off wherever it rears its ugly head! But at the same time politicians in this day and age have to be very careful with what they say in an official (and even unofficial) capacity.

 

Out of interest, did you feel any of the other candidates was likely to be both competent and robust in tackling the issue?

[pratty]

My understanding is that on some "key" issues the whips go round and encourage mps to vote the correct way. I don't know what dark arts they employ never having been in the situation myself, but I think essentially if an mp rebels too strongly the party can kick them out, putting their seat in jeopardy. In effect they can threaten to give the mp the sack (although ultimately that mp may still retain the seat and take it from the party).

 

I find the very notion of party whips abhorrent. MPs should not be expected to toe the party line, rather they should represent the collective opinion of the people that elected them and it is their line they should toe.

 

It annoys me to hear of politicians talking about their personal "vision" for the country, they should have no more influence of implementing their personal political aspirations than the average voter in the street. To me a politician in a free society is a not decider, rather they are a representive and a conduit for the collective will of the people. Of course this would require the people to take more active responsibility for their political governorship.

 

I think for a start to keep our politicians in their place it would be a big help if we started being more careful how we speak of our 'leaders', both casually in conversation but perhaps more importantly in the media. I'm sick of hearing about government buildings referred to as "the corridors of power". Politicians are not "in power", they are in service, and they do not have power, they have responsibility.

 

On this election I feel fairly neutral on it so far. I don't see the Tories as the big bad evil scum i keep hearing they supposedly are, nor did I see Labour or Lib Dems as the gallant knights in shining amour fighting the good fight, I just don't see it that way.

 

What I've learned is that many people speak in such broad generalities that for many peple the political discussion is often reduced to a simplified and digestable black and white either/or sitaution, good vs evil, us vs them. The us vs them of it is especially interesting, almost like 'political fanboyism' with tit for tat bickering back and forth between die hard life long supporters. It goes for a lot of things in general, some people seem too lazy or simply incapable of handling a nuanced shades of grey opinion, and just want to catergorise people and ideas under black and white labels that they can understand.

 

I can deal with somebody thinking I voted for the wrong people, but I do object to he notion that a person is downright scum, because they happened to vote a different way than somebody else. Voting Tory for example so therefore they must a priviledged upperclass corporate fat-cat wanting to pull the ladder up, or they voted UKIP and therefore must be a racist, or voted Green and therefore must be a naive, lazy, hippy treehugger that just wants to stick it to big business and the motorist. I find these generalisations and stereotypes especially ironic coming from the from so called 'liberals' and 'progressives' from whom you wouldn't expect such prejudice.

 

The best example of this sort generalised mis-represntation is probably UKIP. How many people calling UKIP and their supporters racist actually read their policies? If they were truly racist at their core then why does UKIP have ethnic minority supporters? That kind of throws a spanner in the works for the simple UKIP = rascist representaion of UKIP. When discussing UKIP with my (labour voting) friends one said UKIP (he actually reffered to UKIP numorous times as the BNP until I corrected him lol) were racist and that their voters were "lower class yobs". The other said UKIP was "that man in the pub that says foreigners took his job and that's why he also no longer bathes."

 

Regardless of whatever a person concludes about UKIP and their policies, or any other party, to give them fair consideration you actually have to read their policies as they are in all their nuanced detail, instead of deciding in your own mind what you think they are based on hearsay and media soundbites. My concern is that people like my friends might be making their considerations and voting on simplified and exaggerated charactures of political parties and their policies, where it's more important to be funny and feel self righteous, than be fair and accurate.

 

For the record I surpised myself and voted Green, not because I'm a liberal or anything like that somebody might presume me to be, but because in their literature they seemed to be the most willing to think outside the box. While the other parties argued how best to manage society as it is, the Greens actually seemed to be willing to entertain the idea that we may need a serious re-think about how we live in general, and I think that debate is more necessary than just fighting over income tax percentages and immigration levels and the like within the current status quo.

 

Now, people may say a vote for the smaller parties is a wasted vote, because either that party won't get in, or because that vote won't keep some other party out. I think however that voting for the samll parties, if you believe in them, is good because even if they don't win it may still encourage them to continue and grow in support fro melectio to election. Also they don't have to get elected to have an affect, just by being involved can they contribute ideas to the debate, put their concerns on the table, which the other parties may have to address and even adopt. If we don't vote outside of the big two how else will be break the cycle we're supposedly fed up with, of each election always coming down to the duopoly of the two dominant parties?

 

Sorry for the long post.

[Pestneb]

It annoys me to hear of politicians talking about their personal "vision" for the country, they should have no more influence of implementing their personal political aspirations than the average voter in the street. To me a politician in a free society is a not decider, rather they are a representive and a conduit for the collective will of the people. Of course this would require the people to take more active responsibility for their political governorship.

 

I don't mind politicians broadcasting their vision. I see it as a job interview, by hearing what candidates personal visions are we can better choose the candidate who best matches up to our own vision for the country. If for example you want trident kept or abolished or diminished, an MP who also feels that way toward trident is more likely (party whips aside) to represent that view at parliament.

 

I do think that candidates need to get a feel of the constituency and should take into account the votes given to the also rans, especially when it was a close call, but if they got the most votes it is likely that (hopefully) their personal vision matches that of most of their constituents. And if they fail to represent those constituents they should be punished come the next election.

 

I do agree with the party whips though, from what I understand of that system it basically amounts to bullying mps into doing the wrong thing by their constituents!

[pratty]

I don't mind politicians broadcasting their vision. I see it as a job interview, by hearing what candidates personal visions are we can better choose the candidate who best matches up to our own vision for the country. If for example you want trident kept or abolished or diminished, an MP who also feels that way toward trident is more likely (party whips aside) to represent that view at parliament.

 

I know what you mean, that's how it works, perhaps agenda would be a better word than vision, (from all the spelling mistakes you can tell I bashed out my previous post pretty quickly haha), they at least need to be more flexible to adapt to public opinion.

 

But even so, how refreshing would it be for a politician to say "My vision for the country is... actually I have no vision or agenda of my own, my only concern is carrying out the will of the people, so tell me what your vision for the country is, this isn't about what I want, what do you want?"

 

My other frustration is when you hear people talk about politics, both politicans and the media, how much they focus on the game of politics, the party infighting, the back stabbing, the back scratching, the alliances, the personal life scandals, the speaches, the scoring of political points, how one party/politican defeated another, personal achievements as opposed to improvign the lives of the people etc. As though that is what politics is all about, a game to be played and won and lost, instead of a means to improve and progress civilsation. It's almost covered like a spectator sport and everybody supports their favourite team, even betting on who'll win like a sport. How much debate and analysis is lost to that stuff, which has little to no bearing on actually improving the lives of the people.

[Fierce_LiNk]

The electoral system is constructed to ensure things never change and a two party system prevails - not on the basis of the merits of each party, but on the basis that people vote for the one that will stop the one they don't like getting in!

 

When a party can gain the third highest number of votes, yet come away with 2 MPs, it shows that vast numbers of people are going unrepresented.

 

When people are voting Tory to STOP Labour getting in (and vice versa), so essentially a vast portion of the electorate doesn't vote for who they want to win, but to ensure the party they don't like loses - it's a broken system!

 

I completely agree with what you're saying.

 

It is a bad system. It isn't fair and it doesn't give the public what they want or deserve. I don't agree with many of UKIP's policies, therefore I didn't vote for them...but if they received such a percentage of the overall vote, there must be greater representation at the end of it.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with what UKIP stands for is irrelevant, it's about a fair system where people vote for what they believe in, not simply the most likely party to beat the party they dislike the most.

 

UKIP supporters - like the Green supporters - actually voted for a party they believed in. Yet have been rewarded with nothing for doing so, despite voting in great numbers.

 

 

I agree with this too. There would be more incentive for people to vote if each vote actually mattered...whereas at the moment I don't feel that each vote matters. My Mum is in Wales and a vote for Labour there is seemingly worth more than a vote for Labour down here, for example. That can't be right.

 

Can the voting system be changed? Like, how would it ever come up that they would change it? How did the referendum for the Alternative Vote come about?

 

I think it should be a proportional representation system (which is what I am used to from Belgium, had never heard of tactical voting or wasted votes before this election). Even though I don't agree with UKIP for obvious reasons, it is unfair that people's votes mean nothing and their voices are not being heard. That doesn't sound like democracy to me.

 

If the system was different, you would probably see a lot of different votes as well, as people would finally feel that they can vote for the party they believe in, not just vote for a party just to keep the other party out etc...

 

Agreed. Thankfully, we both have similar political viewpoints in our household, so no arguments.

 

I've got to admit that this is the first time an election has got me so wound up. There HAS to be a better way of doing this whole thing and I'm more than willing to give PR a try.

[jayseven]

I think the main worry is irreparable damage. If the NHS is fucked up by privatisation then the only reset is to spend far more money in buying things back. The government never sells things at market price. That's my only worry.

[Goafer]

I think the main worry is irreparable damage. If the NHS is fucked up by privatisation then the only reset is to spend far more money in buying things back. The government never sells things at market price. That's my only worry.

 

This.

 

The NHS is one of the few remaining British things that I'm actually proud of. It's a brilliant system and it genuinely saddens me that it could go tits up.

[Rummy]

My understanding is that on some "key" issues the whips go round and encourage mps to vote the correct way. I don't know what dark arts they employ never having been in the situation myself, but I think essentially if an mp rebels too strongly the party can kick them out, putting their seat in jeopardy. In effect they can threaten to give the mp the sack (although ultimately that mp may still retain the seat and take it from the party).

 

Possibly in a weak majority such as we have right now that is less likely to happen because if enough people rebel the party can't afford the lost seats. We will see. I'm sure there is a lot more to it than I understand, but in terms of my own position I look at the mp's track record come election time. If they followed the whip's prompting or not, if they made too many votes I strongly disagree with I won't be voting them back in (there tend to be just a few key votes I will consider my red lines).

 

--

 

I think unfortunately they have to be guarded about what they put in print, even face to face now after a few tabloid stings, because if they are honest and say something headline worthy....

 

Not against a couple of the stings that have taken place to uncover corruption though, they are some of the few I agree with, we need to kill corruption off wherever it rears its ugly head! But at the same time politicians in this day and age have to be very careful with what they say in an official (and even unofficial) capacity.

 

Out of interest, did you feel any of the other candidates was likely to be both competent and robust in tackling the issue?

 

I don't recall where/when I learnt about party whips(was a documentary or so once) but I was kinda surprised when I heard the lengths and also the sort of power they hold over the MPs etc.

 

When you say other candidates do you mean at the time when I wrote the letters or for this election(I wrote to the Tory guy because he was my local MP at the time)? I was discussing with Marcamillian on Monday and even last night one thing we both felt was lacking was the ease in actually getting to know all that much about your candidates, especially in the current digital information age. I didn't know much about any of my candidates this time, and I also knew it was quite a safe Tory seat, so I spoilt my paper.

[Blade]

My views:

 

The Tories made solid arguments and put forward their ideas in a better way to a public that they were to be trusted with the economy. That they were job and wealth creators.

 

The economy was the number 1 issue in this election in England and Labour failed to fully articulate how they too could be job creators too whilst not increasing the deficit.

 

The Tories put their message across that Labour will return us all to the dark days with their out of control public spending. The middle England electorate obviously know that things are improving and decided on actual polling day to stick to the incumbent.

 

People forget that Tony Blair one three elections on the trot. This was with a Labour party that understood the middle ground. The 2015 General Election it was a traditional Labour Party against a traditional Conservative Party with a traditional result.

 

It was obvious that the Lib Dems would be wiped out. They got into bed with Cameron and his cronies along with trebling tuition fees when they promised not to even increase them and the electorate punished them for it. In the majority of cases the Lib Dem vote went to the Tories to lock out Labour.

 

In Scotland, well it was a complete whitewash. How anyone can be surprised by this is anyones guess. It was obvious. Scotland has always been more left wing than the majority of England. They do not want cuts to public services and austerity. They are also as a nation extremely proud of Scotland whereas England is traditonally apart from on sporting events are not patriotic. The SNP have during the indy ref campaign and also the election made it clear that they are the Scottish party and that will not stand for any more austerity.

 

The Labour Party has treated Scotland as a branch office. They are also too "English", want to renew trident and appear to be no longer the party to end austerity.

 

I truly believe that the majority of Scots dont want full independence. I think that a true federal UK is the way forward with full powers for the four parts of the UK.

 

Also about the electoral system well the Lib Dems have been advocating this for decades as traditionally they have been in 3rd place with about 40-50 seats and with a large proportion of the vote. The SNP too have advocated this but they may feel less strongly about it now FPTP has done them some favours. However things will change, Cameron has said he will change the constituency boundaries. This will make it easier to vote a Tory MP in than any other party.

[sumo73]

Thursday was a win for selfishness and semi blind nationalism.

[sumo73]

Blade, hope this is ok but I've tried to answer your views below. My views are not in bold. Sorry about the length of this post.

 

The Tories made solid arguments and put forward their ideas in a better way to a public that they were to be trusted with the economy. That they were job and wealth creators.

 

The Tories made some arguments (is a zero hours contract a job? is a self employed job under NEA that pays less than JSA a job?) but had a fairly negative campaign. Vote Labour, get SNP. Vote Lib Dem....

They blamed Labour for what was in reality a world economic recession. The collapse of the Lehman Brothers and bankers playing around with our money like it was funny money can't be linked really to any political party here can it? Also remember that in 2013 under this government the UK lost its AAA rating, the first time ever since 1978. During the Coalition the government borrowed more than Labour did in 13 years. Many people believed the Tories stories of Labour having no money left in the safe (which turned out to be a joke from Liam Byrne) and that only they could be trusted with the economy. Did quantitative easing during the coalition really help the people that it was supposed to help?

 

The economy was the number 1 issue in this election in England and Labour failed to fully articulate how they too could be job creators too whilst not increasing the deficit.

 

I agree people voted mainly on the economy in England. However I suggest you have a read at the Conservative Manifesto and read beyond just improving the economy. Yes we will get an IN/OUT referendum about Europe but we won't a referendum about fox hunting, changes to the Human Rights rules, strike actions or giving GCHQ more powers to read into what we are doing online....

 

The Tories put their message across that Labour will return us all to the dark days with their out of control public spending. The middle England electorate obviously know that things are improving and decided on actual polling day to stick to the incumbent.

 

People forget that Tony Blair one three elections on the trot. This was with a Labour party that understood the middle ground. The 2015 General Election it was a traditional Labour Party against a traditional Conservative Party with a traditional result.

 

The political situation back in 1997 is quite different to now in 2015 and during New Labour's reign about five million Labour votes were lost. I'm old enough to remember just barely James Callaghan and the Labour leaders that followed and trust me the Labour party under Ed Milliband was not traditional Labour. It was a party that had I believe moved away towards the left a little, away from a slightly toxic 'New Labour' and that dam war mess under Blair.

 

It was obvious that the Lib Dems would be wiped out. They got into bed with Cameron and his cronies along with trebling tuition fees when they promised not to even increase them and the electorate punished them for it. In the majority of cases the Lib Dem vote went to the Tories to lock out Labour.

 

I think now with a Conservative government in the months to come will we really see what the Lib Dems did in the past to curb some of the Tories plans but they didn't make that case during the elections very well. I understood at the time their view to form a coalition for the interests of the country and I supported that at the very beginning but not at all in the end.

 

Their leader (Nick Clegg) was confident that they would be in coalition again and said they would 'bring a brain to Labour or a heart to the Conservatives'. Arrogance of that sentence and that the Lib Dems would be power again in some way and the fact that they had lost who they really were (selling off the Royal Mail was a joke) are to blame in part for their defeat.

 

In Scotland, well it was a complete whitewash. How anyone can be surprised by this is anyones guess.

 

You earlier talked about a tradition party and traditional result...but you fail to mention the power of the media in all of this. In 2020, have a look at what the Sun newspaper is supporting and that will give you a clue as to who might get in next time. During the 2015 elections The Sun newspaper supported the Conservatives and were anti SNP/Labour/Greens... but north of the boarder in the Scottish Sun they supported the SNP and were anti everybody else. I'm not really sure what the media in general thinks about UKIP but I'm sure during the election quite a few journalists were searching online twitter accounts...and publishing things from random UKIP supporters that might not have been the parties official line on certain things for example.

 

In Scotland people were fed up with cuts and with foodbanks and voted for a party that would support them regardless of how they voted in the referendum last year. From what I know in Northern Ireland people too are fed up with Tory cuts will push against this government in order to get a better deal for the people there. I guess my view is the same for Wales as well.

 

The Labour Party has treated Scotland as a branch office. They are also too "English", want to renew trident and appear to be no longer the party to end austerity.

 

The point about the branch office was already made last year by Johann Lamont a previous Scottish Labour leader but the point is still relevant. From what I've read Labour would have looked into trident but that's it whereas the Lib Dems at least had a message about downgrading trident and of course clearer still message from the SNP and Greens about scrapping it. Labour took a massive hit in Scotland and now the country is pretty much a one party state. Are the so called Unionist parties in Scotland happy that they all got one seat each?

 

Lastly yes the voting system is a mess. I voted for the Alternative vote (a poor appeasement to the Lib Dems) when it came up a few years ago but not many people did. We have the voting system that people decided to vote for.

 

 

Here's another view-

Edited May 18, 2015 by sumo73