TV Election Coverage BBC1HD 8:30PM Friday 8th Special Question Time

[Kazanne]

Where have they got this shower from?

[bots]

has Paddy ate his hat yet?

haha no, paddy is coming over as a bitter old man that can't accept his party was beaten. It has been obvious for years that this was going to happen to the lib dems and it was Nick Cleggs failure to address it that led to last nights lib dem results

[arista]

has Paddy ate his hat yet?


No its under the table

[Kazanne]

haha no, paddy is coming over as a bitter old man that can't accept his party was beaten. It has been obvious for years that this was going to happen to the lib dems and it was Nick Cleggs failure to address it that led to last nights lib dem results

:thumbs:

[kirklancaster]

Russel Brand trying to distance himself now according to this.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/milibrand-rip-russell-brand-stages-climbdown-on-support-for-ed-miliband/ar-BBjqisJ?ocid=LENDHP

Very interesting Kaz - How can ANYBODY with a brain cell give this idiotic, cretinous,moronic fool ANY credibility?

[Kizzy]

Very interesting Kaz - How can ANYBODY with a brain cell give this idiotic, cretinous,moronic fool ANY credibility?

I do, and I don't see it as a climb down. The tories are divisive and dangerous, he highlights that as his view...nothing wrong with that.

[kirklancaster]

I do, and I don't see it as a climb down. The tories are divisive and dangerous, he highlights that as his view...nothing wrong with that.

Your view of Brand after I have PERSONALLY dissected two of his trash videos and exposed them for the utter nonsense which they are, and after highlighting his banal and embarrassing 'U' turns - now followed by this banal and embarrassing 'U' Turn, is seriously worrying Kizzy.

He is CLEARLY a self-seeking, egotistical, buffoon who delusionally views himself as a revolutionary 'Jesus' Messiah figure but who preaches in pigeon English a mixture of plagiarised archaic and discredit anarchy, and confused waffle.

He is a total dick.

[Kizzy]

Your view of Brand after I have PERSONALLY dissected two of his trash videos and exposed them for the utter nonsense which they are, and after highlighting his banal and embarrassing 'U' turns - now followed by this banal and embarrassing 'U' Turn, is seriously worrying Kizzy.

He is CLEARLY a self-seeking, egotistical, buffoon who delusionally views himself as a revolutionary 'Jesus' Messiah figure but who preaches in pigeon English a mixture of plagiarised archaic and discredit anarchy, and confused waffle.

He is a total dick.

I appreciate your worry for me kirk :) don't worry I'll be fine.

[joeysteele]

AS to the voting issue, look the LibDems dropped their strong stance as to pr in order to have a period of shared power with some ministerial posts.
They should have insisted on, at the very least, that AV was implemented without a referendum in order to gain their support.

They had that on the table from Labour which they walked away from.

They then were made to wait until 2011 for the referendum, held at the same time as some of the most horrific policies were going through parliament and some even being implemented.

AV would have assured a different result this time,had the Lib Dems done that. It is no use moaning now, they had their chance in power to bring about main change,which in the end they achieved nothing as to it at all,not even Lords reform.

So blame the Lib Dems, there is really no way voting change is going to come from either of the big parties,unles it is forced on them,once the opportunity arises.
As it did in 2010.

It is obscene that UKIP could get near 4,000,000 votes and only 1 seat,when the DUP and SNP for instance can get many MPs for ridiculously low levels.

However as in 2005 and now here again in 2015, it is even more obscene that a party can win an overall majority with around 35% and 36% of the vote respectively,when nearly two thirds of voters have voted against them.

The Lib Dems however had the great chance to begin to change that when they joined this coalition as to AV and dropped it as a demand for their voting strength.

I do feel really bad for UKIP,I will never vote for them as I don't agree with them on the EU but it is a disgrace that for near 4,000,000 voters going out and voting for them,that those 4,000,000 only see 1 solitary MP representing all their votes.

This is what disengages voters with politics,when they see their efforts and votes discarded and left largely meaningless like this.

[empire]

the problem with the election map of england is that there are to many constituencies in england, and for parties like ukip they have to put so many of there own in area's that are far away from there strongest voting area's, it would take years for them to gain higher votes in stronger area's that they have never been into, we need reforms in the map, because tory's and labour, even snp got seats that they should not of got, the people of england are being cheated by to many constituencies,

[user104658]

Worse than that Joey... Is that most people simply don't understand the ins and outs of how it works. Most people don't have an in depth enough interest in politics to actually follow the process of how constituencies and formation of government works. Simply put, most people believe that today's result - conservative majority - means that the conservatives got over 50% of the vote. They will argue blue in the face that we have a Tory government because "most people wanted one and that's that". When the reality is that actually, most people did not want it, in fact most likely more than 50% of the vote was for parties that could collectively be thought of as "anti-tory" in terms of policies, just different flavours of such.

It's actually a bit of a mess. If it was a choice of two parties only, as with the US presidential elections, Labour would certainly have been a more popular choice than Conservative in my opinion.

[Mystic Mock]

Well Mock,I am working class,and my mom is a carer for a disabled gentleman,we don't feel at all bullied,dont believe all the hype things will be fine,sometimes things have to be implemented we don't like,but that's life,it's not always how we want it.

Look I know not to expect an essy ride as after all we're in a recession so we all should have to pay our debts to get the country back on track, but the Tories and a lot of their rich buddies clearly don't agree and are pushing every other group to do it instead who haven't got as much money as them, that to me is unfair.

[joeysteele]

Worse than that Joey... Is that most people simply don't understand the ins and outs of how it works. Most people don't have an in depth enough interest in politics to actually follow the process of how constituencies and formation of government works. Simply put, most people believe that today's result - conservative majority - means that the conservatives got over 50% of the vote. They will argue blue in the face that we have a Tory government because "most people wanted one and that's that". When the reality is that actually, most people did not want it, in fact most likely more than 50% of the vote was for parties that could collectively be thought of as "anti-tory" in terms of policies, just different flavours of such.

It's actually a bit of a mess. If it was a choice of two parties only, as with the US presidential elections, Labour would certainly have been a more popular choice than Conservative in my opinion.

Yes,I can agree with all that.Well said Toy Soldier.

[empire]

labour are finished, they have lost half of the working class vote, instead of helping british workers, they help outsiders, lib dem's are done for, britain's election structure is in truth out of date, because if you look at the map of today, and look at the map of 1979, almost nothing has changed, ukip got alot more votes than the snp but they got more seats, its time well had a modern voting system, that won't shut up millions of other voters.

[MTVN]

Worse than that Joey... Is that most people simply don't understand the ins and outs of how it works. Most people don't have an in depth enough interest in politics to actually follow the process of how constituencies and formation of government works. Simply put, most people believe that today's result - conservative majority - means that the conservatives got over 50% of the vote. They will argue blue in the face that we have a Tory government because "most people wanted one and that's that". When the reality is that actually, most people did not want it, in fact most likely more than 50% of the vote was for parties that could collectively be thought of as "anti-tory" in terms of policies, just different flavours of such.

It's actually a bit of a mess. If it was a choice of two parties only, as with the US presidential elections, Labour would certainly have been a more popular choice than Conservative in my opinion.

I doubt anyone thinks the Tories had over 50% of the vote but national vote share is and always has been irrelevant in our system - this ain't the USA after all. What the Tories did do is win the individual contest in 331 out of 650 seats so it is true to say that over 50% of constituencies wanted to be represented by a Tory MP.

[joeysteele]

I doubt anyone thinks the Tories had over 50% of the vote but national vote share is and always has been irrelevant in our system - this ain't the USA after all. What the Tories did do is win the individual contest in 331 out of 650 seats so it is true to say that over 50% of constituencies wanted to be represented by a Tory MP.

You may be surprised MTVN, I was in a conversation yesterday with some people,I went to see thanking them for voting.

It was staggering how many said, they cannot believe how the majority of voters supported them.
I mentioned he had only got the same votes really he had last time,and that 63% at least had voted against the Conservatives.

To which they were stunned he had an overall majority.
I think it bad enough that getting just over 40% in elections often brings massive overall majorities.
Now, this is the 2nd election where only around 35/36% of the votes have given an overall majority.

That is why I now believe since this is the 3rd election in a row where less than 70% of those who voted,voted for the 2 main parties.
That it should be far more relfective of the votes actually cast over seats won.

No other party in Westminster now would support the proposed welfare cuts to come,that is 64% of voters who voted against welfare cuts.
It is a really bad system that can allow such a policiy to be done because of arithmetic of seats.
With the Lib Dems alst time, he was able to do his austerity cuts,because love or hate the last govt;,with the last govt; he had a combined votes strength of near 60% of the votes cast as well as seats.

This time, he can do anything he likes despite near 64% of UK citizens not supporting his measures at all.
It seems this system is now unlikely again to let the winning party get anything like over 40% of the votes cast let alone nearer 50% in any way.

A system that brings that into play is totally wrong now in my view, it is not fit for the purpose of providing fair, representative govt; and therefore is broken.
If govts; took their poor share of the votes cast for them into account,it would be different, however now, this govt; can just about do what it likes with such really weak support,only because of the seats it has got.
To me that is a disgrace no matter what party it is,who would be in that position.

[Crimson Dynamo]

AS to the voting issue, look the LibDems dropped their strong stance as to pr in order to have a period of shared power with some ministerial posts.
They should have insisted on, at the very least, that AV was implemented without a referendum in order to gain their support.

They had that on the table from Labour which they walked away from.

They then were made to wait until 2011 for the referendum, held at the same time as some of the most horrific policies were going through parliament and some even being implemented.

AV would have assured a different result this time,had the Lib Dems done that. It is no use moaning now, they had their chance in power to bring about main change,which in the end they achieved nothing as to it at all,not even Lords reform.

So blame the Lib Dems, there is really no way voting change is going to come from either of the big parties,unles it is forced on them,once the opportunity arises.
As it did in 2010.

It is obscene that UKIP could get near 4,000,000 votes and only 1 seat,when the DUP and SNP for instance can get many MPs for ridiculously low levels.

However as in 2005 and now here again in 2015, it is even more obscene that a party can win an overall majority with around 35% and 36% of the vote respectively,when nearly two thirds of voters have voted against them.

The Lib Dems however had the great chance to begin to change that when they joined this coalition as to AV and dropped it as a demand for their voting strength.

I do feel really bad for UKIP,I will never vote for them as I don't agree with them on the EU but it is a disgrace that for near 4,000,000 voters going out and voting for them,that those 4,000,000 only see 1 solitary MP representing all their votes.

This is what disengages voters with politics,when they see their efforts and votes discarded and left largely meaningless like this.

Ukip should have then targetted the SE as a region instead of the whole of the UK, that way they may have got more seats. Having reps in scotland with Nigel belting out an anti scottish agenda was crazy

[bots]

But everyone knows the system, you vote for your candidate, and if they get the most votes they win. Its only made an issue when a sore loser doesn't win. I much prefer it to a system where we have a list of candidates for a party that get a seat based on total number of votes cast. That is undemocratic, it allows candidates to be chosen without regard to their capability or performance looking after constituents. As they no longer represent anyone directly, they are not held responsible.

Despite its faults, I would much rather keep our existing system

[joeysteele]

Look I know not to expect an essy ride as after all we're in a recession so we all should have to pay our debts to get the country back on track, but the Tories and a lot of their rich buddies clearly don't agree and are pushing every other group to do it instead who haven't got as much money as them, that to me is unfair.

The only people not getting an easy ride in the previous govt; were the most vulnerable.
You are right as to that, largely those very well off, were protected and ahd little or no change at all to their situations.

This lot are in now with barely the same votes they got in 2010,this time with no other back up from another party.

maybe they will tone down their further expected attack on the vulnerable as to even more crippling welfare cuts.
If they do I will applaud them,if they press on with those welfare cuts as planned,then for me, that would be a disgrace.

Sadly I think they will and what you say above as to last time, will likely be as relevant to this time too.
For instance, even many in the Conservative party feel the bedroom charge was a massive error of judgement, every single party in this election would have just about scrapped it.
Had I seen one admission that was wrong from the Conservatives,I may have felt more positive towards them.

Not a bit, they never budged an inch as to it and so that obscene policy stays in place despite near 64% of voters voting for parties that all said they would either abolish it or heavily reform it.

It is the overall majority status that is wrong after this election,that allows this lot to do whatever it wants.
However with that overall majority of 12, also come the fact that now well over 300 MPs in Westminster can now freely vote against this govt; on issues.
It is a govt; that has gone from being able to rely on majorities of over 50,to having to make sure all its MPs are always there for vital votes to maybe even just scrape a single figure win as to legistation.
Possibly the only good thing to have come from this election.

[joeysteele]

But everyone knows the system, you vote for your candidate, and if they get the most votes they win. Its only made an issue when a sore loser doesn't win. I much prefer it to a system where we have a list of candidates for a party that get a seat based on total number of votes cast. That is undemocratic, it allows candidates to be chosen without regard to their capability or performance looking after constituents. As they no longer represent anyone directly, they are not held responsible.

Despite its faults, I would much rather keep our existing system

I would accept that if the winning party was getting at least over 40% of the votes cast.

This is as I said, the 3rd election now where the 2 main parties have only taken around two thirds of the votes cast between them.

I supported first past the post, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair all got over 40% of the votes in their elections in the main.
Having only a bit over a third of voters deciding the govt; of the day with an overall majority is never going to address the people who don't bother voting becasuse they believe their vote is meaningless.

Same in 2005, it was obscene that Tony Blair got a 66 overall majority after only taking around 35% of the votes cast.
I have now come round to the view,the system is rotten now and does need change.

This election for instance, has the Conservatives getting just about the same vote they got in 2010, it has the Labour party showing a small increase in their votes it got.

Last time, the result was 307 to 258 respectively.

With hardly any change at all for one and a small increase for the other,this election has now given 'absolute' power to one party.
I can no longer support such a system that can bring that scenario about.

[bots]

The tories have not got anything close to absolute power. Its going to be a nightmare 5 years for them. Tbh, labour not winning may seem hard to take now, but looking forward, they will be much better placed when the next 5 years play out, and they can distance themselves completely from it.

We are entering uncharted territory. In 2 years everyone will start saying Cameron's time is over as he is retiring. So, he doesn't give a flying **** what happens after then. All the big issues will be resolved one way or another in the next 2 years.

[Cherie]

Ukip should have then targetted the SE as a region instead of the whole of the UK, that way they may have got more seats. Having reps in scotland with Nigel belting out an anti scottish agenda was crazy

:laugh: Farage couldn't win in his own back yard most of the Labour seats are in the SE, UKIP do well in areas where there is fear of immigrants rather than where there are any

[Crimson Dynamo]

:laugh: Farage couldn't win in his own back yard most of the Labour seats are in the SE, UKIP do well in areas where there is fear of immigrants rather than where there are any

yes but they spread themselves too thin. Farage may have won if he had spent his money/time in one geographical area

[joeysteele]

The tories have not got anything close to absolute power. Its going to be a nightmare 5 years for them. Tbh, labour not winning may seem hard to take now, but looking forward, they will be much better placed when the next 5 years play out, and they can distance themselves completely from it.

We are entering uncharted territory. In 2 years everyone will start saying Cameron's time is over as he is retiring. So, he doesn't give a flying **** what happens after then. All the big issues will be resolved one way or another in the next 2 years.


I agree with that, I also would like to say,you and I have had some issues over this campaign but I have always been genuinely interested in your take on things.

I think what you say above is corect, I can see him having a harder time with the majority than when he didn't especially as to the EU issue which is likely going to consume the party for at least 18 months.

Unless Labour really make the right choice this time,I don't see the votes flooding back there either really.
They have to get it right, I have this awful feeling that since Ed Ball's lost his seat,being his wife, many in the Labour party may swing to Yvette Cooper,I really like her but am not sure she would convey a better message.

Although as you point out, David Cameron will be gone then and many contentious issues not in play.
The EU referendum,if it happens, I still have my doubts.
That will likely be settled, as to UKIP too,if the UK votes to stay in, that issue is removed from them at a stroke.

I am disillusioned, not disheartened, I love elections and am a full democrat.
I like a great deal of what David Cameron has said so far after his win, it appears on the surface to have made him more humble.
None of the arrogant gloating and critical vindictive tone around now.
I feel he is so genuinely relieved to have won, that it may even reflect a little more in what he now has his govt; do.
I'd like to hope for that.

I am one of his strongest critics and I am no fan of him whatsoever,I am prepared to see how he goes from now however.
Hoping for better from him and certainly that vital ingredient of some compassion at least ,while still expecting nothing of the sort.

[arista]

I thank UKIP
for Getting Ed Balls removed.

Because of their thousands
it helped the Conservative Lady to take his place


Utter Bliss

[user104658]

I doubt anyone thinks the Tories had over 50% of the vote but national vote share is and always has been irrelevant in our system - this ain't the USA after all. What the Tories did do is win the individual contest in 331 out of 650 seats so it is true to say that over 50% of constituencies wanted to be represented by a Tory MP.
I think you'd probably be surprised, I talked to a lot of people, even vaguely interested people, about the process over the last couple of weeks while taking bets and trying to explain the odds, and then also explaining the result. Many people are simply baffled by a lot of it. Most didn't understand the concept of a "minority" government at all, for example, and certainly couldn't get their heads around the fact that at one point Ed Miliband was favourite to "be the next PM" while the conservatives have been 1/5 (a relative certainty) to "win the most seats" for months, and "win the most votes" has hovered around evens for both.

These aren't "thick" people, just average people who don't have any real interest in the process until the day of the election itself. It's quite worrying, when you think about it. I mean, what even is "democracy" if huge chunks of the people voting don't understand the process?

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think you'd probably be surprised, I talked to a lot of people, even vaguely interested people, about the process over the last couple of weeks while taking bets and trying to explain the odds, and then also explaining the result. Many people are simply baffled by a lot of it. Most didn't understand the concept of a "minority" government at all, for example, and certainly couldn't get their heads around the fact that at one point Ed Miliband was favourite to "be the next PM" while the conservatives have been 1/5 (a relative certainty) to "win the most seats" for months, and "win the most votes" has hovered around evens for both.

These aren't "thick" people, just average people who don't have any real interest in the process until the day of the election itself. It's quite worrying, when you think about it. I mean, what even is "democracy" if huge chunks of the people voting don't understand the process?

then its their responsibility to understand it surely?

[user104658]

then its their responsibility to understand it surely?
That's a very easy answer but I'd suggest that it doesn't really matter whose responsibility it is, only that it is the case. People are lazy, mostly disinterested, not politically engaged and have the wrong idea about the system and it ends up acting as "natural propaganda". That is to say... Someone believes a majority means more than half of the country voted that way, we now have a majority Tory government, that person now believes that more than 50% of people voted Tory, and they then think "well they can't be that bad if more than half the country wants it".

The basics should be taught in schools from age 14 upwards. It seems fairly obvious that this basic understanding should be ensured. But the establishment actually benefits from ignorance, so they're happy to let it remain vague and convoluted.

[Livia]

I learned the basics of voting and of government when I was at school. Most people I know have a decent grasp on it. We've had this conversation before TS, but I have faith in the British public, I don't assume they're a bit dim and don't know what they're doing because as far as I can see people generally have a decent grasp on what's going on.

[MTVN]

Like with voting I do think people have a responsibility to engage with politics themselves as well. All very well to say people are disillusioned etc. but they also have more opportunities to engage with politics than ever before, politicians are more accountable now, there's much wider availability of news and opinion, the public get to see more of their workings etc. There's nowhere near the same bubble around Westminster as there used to be

[bots]

Someone pointed out on QT last night that the 4 million ukip voters had an opportunity along with the lib dems and the greens, to change the voting system when it was put to a public vote. The public said no ... keep it as it is. People can't just engage in politics when they feel like it, it has to be a commitment.

[Cherie]

Most people have a grasp on it. Most know if they are in a safe or marginal seat and if their vote is likely to make a difference, though that was turned on it's head in many areas this time, if we only voted because we knew our candidate was a shoe many would stay at home.

[Cherie]

yes but they spread themselves too thin. Farage may have won if he had spent his money/time in one geographical area

I know what you are saying but I doubt that would have done the party any favours

[Kizzy]

How did Iain duncan smith win his seat back...he's being prosecuted for human rights violations isn't he?

[Northern Monkey]

That's a very easy answer but I'd suggest that it doesn't really matter whose responsibility it is, only that it is the case. People are lazy, mostly disinterested, not politically engaged and have the wrong idea about the system and it ends up acting as "natural propaganda". That is to say... Someone believes a majority means more than half of the country voted that way, we now have a majority Tory government, that person now believes that more than 50% of people voted Tory, and they then think "well they can't be that bad if more than half the country wants it".

The basics should be taught in schools from age 14 upwards. It seems fairly obvious that this basic understanding should be ensured. But the establishment actually benefits from ignorance, so they're happy to let it remain vague and convoluted.
I agree.I'm 33 and i feel i'm only just at the point now that i really understand it.Mainly due to a lack of interest until 2010.I knew abit and i used to vote but i really did'nt immerse myself in the facts until the last GE.As far as i remember i did'nt learn about the voting system in school and the only politics i learned were the politics of the past in history.

[user104658]

I agree.I'm 33 and i feel i'm only just at the point now that i really understand it.Mainly due to a lack of interest until 2010.I knew abit and i used to vote but i really did'nt immerse myself in the facts until the last GE.As far as i remember i did'nt learn about the voting system in school and the only politics i learned were the politics of the past in history.

I learned the basics of voting and of government when I was at school. Most people I know have a decent grasp on it. We've had this conversation before TS, but I have faith in the British public, I don't assume they're a bit dim and don't know what they're doing because as far as I can see people generally have a decent grasp on what's going on.
And as before Livia, I maintain my suspicion that you run in politically active circles and more importantly in the City. It's a world of its own. I live in a world where I have a coworker who didn't know what SNP stood for and kept referring to the Conservatives as the "Conservatories". I actually thought she was just making a play on the word with "Tories" but no; she thought that's what they were called.

It's really not that unusual. Some find it confusing, some find it boring, others just find it too depressing to think about (and I sort of understand that last stance) but it's fairly evident that a huge number of people have no interest at all, and even those who do have a passing interest, a large number don't fully understand the process.

I challenge you to quiz some random people in the street (normal ones, not professionals who will be up on politics) and ask them to explain the concepts of FPTP, Alternate Vote, and Proportional Representation. If you had a pound for the number of blank stares you would get, and another for the number of people who would get it wrong...

Also, as with Eyeball above, modern politics was not taught at all at my high school unless you opted to take Social Studies, which I have to say, was not a very popular choice, with most opting for History or Geography instead. I think there was a class of around 27 in my year, out of a year group of nearly 160 pupils.

[Northern Monkey]

And as before Livia, I maintain my suspicion that you run in politically active circles and more importantly in the City. It's a world of its own. I live in a world where I have a coworker who didn't know what SNP stood for and kept referring to the Conservatives as the "Conservatories". I actually thought she was just making a play on the word with "Tories" but no; she thought that's what they were called.

:laugh:
And these people understand betting odds?:joker:

[user104658]

[emoji23]
And these people understand betting odds?:joker:
Worryingly, not always :joker: