A quick comparison between FPTP and PR:

Number & share of votes:
Conservatives - 11.3m - 36.9%
Labour - 9.3m - 30.4%
UKIP - 3.9m - 12.6%
Liberal Democrats - 2.4m - 7.9%
SNP - 1.5m - 4.7%
Green - 1.2m - 3.8%
DUP - 184,260 - 0.6%
Plaid Cymru - 181,694 - 0.6%
Sinn Fein - 176,232 - 0.6%
UUP - 114,935 - 0.4%
SDLP - 98,809 - 0.3%
Alliance - 61,556 - 0.2%
TUSC - 36,327 - 0.1%
NHA - 20,210 - 0.1%
TUV - 16,538 - 0.1%

Number of MP's under FPTP
Conservatives - 331
Labour - 232
SNP - 56
Liberal Democrats - 8
DUP - 8
Sinn Fein - 4
Plaid Cymru - 3
SDLP - 3
UUP - 2
UKIP - 1
Green - 1
Independent - 1

MP's under PR
Conservatives - 242
Labour - 199
UKIP - 82
Liberal Democrats - 51
SNP - 31
Greens - 24
Others - 21

YES!!! Bloody brilliant result. The cherry on the rather large cake was seeing Balls get booted out.
The bleating of Jones, Toynbee et al is music to my ears.
Hopefully this'll see the Labour party and it's band of hypocritical acolytes banished to the margins for a good while.
At least those on welfare will be spared Rachel Reeves and her plan to hit them harder than the Tories, what sort of heartless, socially bereft would vote for a party that would do that?

Haven't laughed as much since Quisling Benn popped his clogs.

The Labour party pulling itself apart with half of them wanting to lurch further to the left and the other half wanting to move back towards the centre. Whatever happens half of them aren't going to be happy.

It also looks like there will be open war as to the ongoing role of the trade unions in the future of the party.

It's going to be a long way back into office for the Labour party.

The problems of the Labour party will be like a vicar's tea party compared to the interfighting that will now ensue in the parliamentary tory party. Once the dust has settled (should be after the summer break), then Camoron's real problems will start to surface.

He's going into the next five years with a smaller majority than Major enjoyed and an equal number of right-wing nutjobs. Farage won't be needed to "hold Cameron's feet to the fire" over Europe, he's got plenty on his own team to do that. He'll no longer have the LimpDems to blame for not being able to implement ALL of his manifesto commitments. Now the UK public will see him for the sneaky, conniving bully that he is.

Labour may be looking at a few years in the wilderness but the last thing they should do is even consider a return to Blairism. No matter what the likes of Mandelson may say, Blair was 20 years ago and thanks to him and his bessie GWB, the world is a completely different place. Labour have suffered far worse defeats, they'll get over this

I agree Labour cannot go back. Blair was the right man at the right time. But times and needs move on.

In the short-term it is difficult to see where Labour can go. Over time they have got to hope that the union doesn't break, PR is introduced and / or the Tories sh*t on too many people that people have nowhere else to turn.

Even without an elected leader, the first thing any incumbent Labour MP or prospective candidate should do is engage with the electorate. Blair ushered in the "professional politician", the PPE graduate who became a SPAD and then went on to be given a party nomination. Sean Woodward should never have been offered a seat anywhere, he should have been told to defend the seat he held before his defection. I reckon the main reason Ed Balls lost was the fact that his opponent sold her house and moved into his constituency two years ago. She was seen far more often in Morley than he was. Greg Mullholland was one of only eight LimpDems to retain his seat and that had much to do with his engagement with his local electorate.

The public's "feeling" is whatever the media chooses. I knew something was fishy the moment UKIP arrived and instead of the press ignoring these fringe cranks it instead embraced them like a cup-winning team just returned from Wembley.

Despite the fact they didn't even have enough followers to outnumber the likes of Socialist Labour they were given wildly disproportionate coverage. If I had the heads of the major media companies here right now I'd ask them - precisely WHY - despite never showing the slightest interest in fringe parties before (other than Martin Bell's silly white suit nonsense) - did you devote so much air space to UKIP early on?

From the outset UKIP had truckloads of cash to spend, but all the money in the world couldn't buy the kind of coverage the BBC was prepared to give Farage. Indeed, the BBC has served as a booster for UKIP throughout this Tory government.

And when the Beeb wasn't obsessing over Farage dunking a pint of bitter in some East End boozer it laid siege to just about every port, rail terminal and airline arrival lounge in expectation of the next breaking "Fuzzy Wuzzies At The Door" story.

The moment the Tories jumped with in the Lib-Gones we've had this self-fueling cycle of UKIP->"Polish Freebooters"->Farage->"Asylum Seeker Benefit Cheats"->UKIP->"Fuzzy Wuzzies Jumping The Fence At Calais"->Farage->...

All through the election week (in two cases immediately after Party Political Broadcasts) we've been inundated with images of France and the issues they are having over there. Now, I'm NOT saying this isn't newsworthy. But what we've seen goes above and beyond reasonable journalistic endeavor.

As I keep saying - UKIP is an election-rigging tool. Used in conjunction with the wholly aligned mainstream media which has sought to heighten the public's fear of immigrants (whether they be legitimate or not) at EVERY OPPORTUNITY it's worked to [uPERFECTION[/u.

I forgot to add - as well as an election rigging mechanism the UKIP/MSM combination serves to create a social and political climate which provides the Tory Party all the excuses it needs to trample human rights jurisdiction and more importantly - conduct NHS reforms (btw, a "reform" is, by definition, something we are meant to like).

Personally I've always thought the NHS is the primary target. UKIP invariably leads on the issue of foreigners but when you look closely they really do spend an awful lot of time talking about NHS privatization.

Now that UKIP is firmly ingrained on the national psyche I think you'll find they'll gradually begin to tone down the xenophobia whilst cranking up talk on the NHS.

It'll be the old "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine. First "Bad Cop" - MSM reporting "yet another NHS failure"->UKIP proposes radical solution (which everyone will hate)->MSM reporting "more NHS failure"->UKIP ... another self-fueling cycle. Step forward now, "Good Cop" - David Cameron defending the honour of the NHS whilst denouncing UKIP extremism on healthcare reform - yet all the while inching further and further toward UKIP's position with a series of mini concessions which, whilst not as drastic as UKIP's proposals, ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN THE REAL GOAL.

With the impending arrival of TPP I think the pressure was on from every angle to finally put the NHS to bed. No Labour government could EVER be involved with such reforms and hope to be elected next (or any other) time around. So the party threw in the towel. Once the dirty deed is done it'll "re-invent" itself once more - just in time to save us from those beastly Tories.

After smashing the NHS for good this country won't need too much encouragement to leap into Labour's clutches once again. More than likely it'll be for eight or nine years.

Do I really need to pen this charade out much further?

no.


Shouldn't this stuff be in the "conspiracy theory" thread, rather than the General Election thread?

Indeed. Or perhaps the book thread under 'fiction'.

Odd how he knew about this epic and long-running conspiracy from the beginning yet failed to mention it at any point.

If nothing else, he made me chuckle on a Monday morning. No mean feat.

There isn't a "conspiracy theory" thread.

In any case, browsing the entirity of this thread suggests people have no issues offering their own "conspiratorial" rationalisations. Perhaps you should take this issue up with them?

The latest figures from the OBR show that:
Public sector net borrowing in 2014-15 was £87.3bn (£3bn less than expected in April's budget)
In five years the deficit has come down from £153.5bn that the coalition inherited in 2009-10. This is a drop of 43% or relative to GDP it has fallen from 10.2% to 4.8% by more than half.

These latest figures show the Public sector net debt at the end of March (end of 2014-15 year) was £1,484bn (80% of GDP) up from £956bn at the end of 2009-10. This is a rise of 55% not 100% as you remarked with your repeated "DOUBLED" shout.

If you would like an example of the "doubling" of debt you need look no further than the five years between 2004-5 and 2009-10 when the debt increased from £448bn to £956bn. In fact this was more than "doubling" it was an increase of 113%.

We also now know that "No More Boom and Bust" Brown's supposedly fiscally responsible government was running a structural (or underlying) overall budget deficit of around 5% of GDP in 2007 - before the world economic crash!

So to call call others "thick, economically illiterate" is a tad more than the pan calling the kettle black!

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to change your comic book name from General Zod to the Numskulls - now that would be a 'Beezer"

My understanding is that it is not these rights that will be repealed but rather the Act which means the judgement of the highest court in our land can be overturned by an EU court based on by broad stroke so called human rights. To suggest our country will not honour real human rights is a nonsense. We have a proud and well earned history of justice and the human rights in our country are the envy of the world.

Depends which of the various versions of PR you choose. However one of the biggest arguments against PR is that smaller parties gain too much power. It may seem fairer but are you happy with Ukip having 82 seats? or the economically irresponsible Greens having 24 seats. In any case the 2 right of parties votes would total 324 and the 4 left of votes would total 305 so the majority is still 19 - so how would that make a difference?

Also PR would mean manifestos are totally worthless as coalitions have to compromise on their promises and the LibDem vote shows how well the voters like that idea.

Whilst the UK is not as bad as a lot of places I would suggest that it has and does breach several Articles. By the way, the right to a fair trial should be extended to include the people's right that certain people should not be able to avoid fair trial by virtue of their status within the establishment.

You wish!

Cameron will enjoy a honeymoon period because the Tories like winners. During this period they will put through all the contentious stuff and continue with their economic plan to reduce the deficit. Cameron and Osborne will have much greater authority to win some real reforms of the EU and as there will now be a referendum the back-benchers will be free to campaign as they wish so no need for infighting. Rumour has it that the PM may bring forward the date of the referendum which will please the 1922 committee.

I think he will try and implement all his manifesto commitments. If some gets voted out not his fault.

With regard to the Labour - they were routed by a party further to the left in Scotland and in England/Wales well beaten (by 99 seats) by a party to their right. The voters rejected their smug leaders and regarded their policies as too left wing, too anti business, too anti wealth creation, too metropolitan and economically too risky. If Labour do not except this result and move back to the they risk Ukip routing them in their remaining strongholds in the North and Midlands next time.

I never said it was perfect however I believe it right that we should bring back to our country the final say regarding the law.

So you do not seem to believe in democracy then? Can you produce proof your allegation of "election- rigging" Can you provide some proof of the "truckloads of cash" to spend?

I did not vote for Ukip but I know they have had good results in the Local elections for some time now and more than a decade ago they did well in the Euro elections and last year they became the largest party in the EU parliament. So like them or loath them to suggest they have not earned a platform is undemocratic. Will you be suggesting that at the next election Labour gets 1/59 share of the media coverage? I wonder!

No. Please spare us more of your "we was robbed" fiction. The public voted fair and square having listened to and rejected all the Labour scare stories about the NHS, zero hour contracts, the rich not paying taxes, food banks etc etc. The sooner you accept the result and move on the less angry you will be.

[code[/code


It would also impact on the quality of our MP's in my opinion, by letting in the lower echelons of the minor parties.

Would our Parliament be improved by having the 82nd best UKIP candidate in it, or the 24th best Green party candidate (given that the leader could barely string 2 sentences together)? How rigorous are the selection policies of the minor parties? How does the 82nd best UKIP candidate compare in experience, education and intellect to the 243rd best Conservative candidate?

I suspect there are a few of their own MP's that the SNP would rather not have in Parliament now, and would have had a more rigorous selection process if they knew they would win 56 seats.

At least with the current system you know exactly which candidate you are casting your vote for.

Who's "we"?

Not really. It was a disaster when it was first implemented in Greece (at the business end of the phalanx) - bringing down the entire Athenian empire within years. The Greeks very quickly discovered that he who controls the flow of information controls the democracy and the entire system was wide open to be "gamed" by the likes of Alcibiades and other such demagogues.

Plato nary had a good word to say about it. Alexander The Great paid little more than lip service. The Romans thought it was quaint etc. etc.

The notion that democracy is self-evidently the finest political system in the world is a relatively new idea. In truth it was the Spartan system which right up until the first World War was universally admired.

Would that we have the original Greek interpretation of representative democracy anyhow - where politicians are selected purely on the strength of their abilities, must balance the books at the end of each year, are forced to account for the actions under direct inquiry from the citizenry, fight at or near the front of the phalanx during war and face the threat of ostracism (or worse) in the event of incompetence.

Politicians these days have it easy.

What it will mean is that instead of our Supreme Court making decisions, based on ECHR agreements. For as long as we remain a member of the EU, then any UK subject will still have the right to appeal to the European Court of Justice. Repealing the Human Rights Act will just help serve the lawyers.

Unless of course, this bunch of misfits really are intent on leaving the EU

This seems to sum things up nicely: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -tree.html

This seems to sum things up nicely: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -tree.html

Quote ="Dally"This seems to sum things up nicely: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -tree.html'" Only if you happen to be a rabid neo-liberal

Quote ="Dally"This seems to sum things up nicely: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -tree.html'" Only if you happen to be a rabid neo-liberal