Metropol

I was more offended by the term "lanky haired". What does it even mean?

If Labour KNOW this six months ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32606713 why didn't it make more changes, it felt like it give up. I can understand why there started making more comments about balancing the books but it just made them feel like Tory lite.

I wonder if Labour will copy the ideas of this guy: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ion-tories

Has anyone else notice, bout how this Tory victory is linked to the 1955, Tory win. Of course in 1955 the liberal vote also collapsed, as the party only stood in 100 odd seats, thus people only either had the Tories or labour.

I don't think this Tory win is overwhelming as its being claimed, especial if 901 people had voted differently:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/gen ... 00-5682492

barcode wrote:Has anyone else notice, bout how this Tory victory is linked to the 1955, Tory win. Of course in 1955 the liberal vote also collapsed, as the party only stood in 100 odd seats, thus people only either had the Tories or labour.

I don't think this Tory win is overwhelming as its being claimed, especial if 901 people had voted differently:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/gen ... 00-5682492

Without those 900 votes, they would still be far and away the largest party though, and would probably be able to function as if they were a majority government at least to begin with.

An interesting piece, apart from highlight the bloody obvious, this election was most disproportionate in history
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

It give idea what the outcome would have been if we had used a different voting system, i don't know who it can state if we had use AV the tories would ended up with more seats and the Greens and UKIP still have one seat.

Until we have a "vote for a party, not vote for a candidate" political system, these type of articles are just hot air. Campaign for a different, "fairer" voting system all you like, but don't attempt to compare apples and oranges. You can't apply the values of a representative system to an "unrepresentative" system. That's like saying the Premier League is unfair because it goes on games won rather than goals scored.

Alexia wrote:Until we have a "vote for a party, not vote for a candidate" political system, these type of articles are just hot air. Campaign for a different, "fairer" voting system all you like, but don't attempt to compare apples and oranges. You can't apply the values of a representative system to an "unrepresentative" system. That's like saying the Premier League is unfair because it goes on games won rather than goals scored.

It gives a rough idea as to how different the results could have been under that system, not a precise breakdown.

I won't even bother trying to pick apart your (poor) analogy; the current system is unrepresentative, and the debate about voting systems is deciding whether we want our voting system to represent the differing views in our nation, or whether we want it to represent the solely the majority view of arbitrary pockets of the country, clubbing together to exclude views that happen to be more spread across the country.

Clearly the electoral system needs reform, but neither of the big two parties will be keen to change it as they still believe themselves to be in a two party system. Which they are, effectively.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... t-election

A very good piece, and Labour clearly deserved to lose this election, for some of there stupid views.