Why the Tories Won

antrobus

Hapless Harriet has given an interview to the Independent. The headline tells you what you need to know.

Harriet Harman interview: Even Labour supporters were glad we didn't win the election, says interim leader
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/harriet-harman-interview-even-labour-supporters-were-glad-we-didnt-win-the-election-says-interim-leader-10303562.html

Not voting for your preferred party can sometimes be a meaningful choice.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

Whatever else we think of Blair in hindsight, he did understand Joe Public in a way that neither Brown nor Miliband did.

Yes he did.

I don't disagree by the way that it is good for politicians to have a meaningful work background outside of politics, but there can be little doubt Blair's repeated electoral success was largely as a result of his ability to get the middle classes to trust Labour.

And from that perspective, the fact that Blair came from a firmly middle class background was a help, rather than a hindrance.

I'd suggest that for Labour to win again they need a leadership team who can get the middle class to trust them and then vote for them, and that's a whole lot easier when the public has a perception those leaders understand the middle classes, as they come from similar backgrounds and have similar aspirations.

kbrumann

Further good news was, that UKIP lost half its seats in the General Election 2015, due to UK’s First Past the Post electoral system, which is no longer fit for purpose.

Generali

kbrumann wrote: »

Further good news was, that UKIP losed half its seats in the General Election 2015, due to UK’s First Past the Post electoral system, which is no longer fit for purpose.

I agree.

As someone who would rather see the Tories ruling alone than any other outcome I agree.

FPTP works very well when you have two large parties who will swap power now and again and the rest are getting beggur all.

When you have 6 parties getting substantial votes (4-5%+) then it's simply unreasonable to have FPTP as a system.

The SNP got 56 seats on a twentieth of the popular vote, UKIP got 1 seat on over an eighth. That's not the fault of either party, you simply play the game to the rules, but it doesn't seem reasonable, equitable or fair.

The Greens got six times the votes of the DUP but 1 vs 8 seats.

I have spent all of my adult life as a supporter of FPTP but it doesn't seem to work any more. Given the history of the UK it shows that it doesn't pay to be too hasty so perhaps we should wait for another election or two to confirm that this is a permanent change to British politics. If it is then the electoral system should change to reflect the wider social system it operates within.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

I have spent all of my adult life as a supporter of FPTP but it doesn't seem to work any more. Given the history of the UK it shows that it doesn't pay to be too hasty so perhaps we should wait for another election or two to confirm that this is a permanent change to British politics. If it is then the electoral system should change to reflect the wider social system it operates within.

I understand your point, but delaying for another decade or two only potentially aides the "big two" with some of the electorate then thinking that to make an impact, you really need to just decide between the "big two".

What proportional representation would do is make sure that the big two try and appeal to all of the electorate as truly every single vote counts.

Change can't come quick enough for me.

michaels

It is not a democratic arguement but might a more proportional system encourage 'populism' amongst candidates rather than thoe who are able to take a longer term view and occasionally lead rather than just follow. For example given the current distibution of wealth it would be easy to construct a redistribution plan that would greatly benefit 60% of the population in the short term (at the possible cost of making everyone worse off in the long term) but it might still be popular enough to win an election with the majority of the population who live paycheck top paycheck....

IveSeenTheLight

michaels wrote: »

It is not a democratic arguement but might a more proportional system encourage 'populism' amongst candidates rather than thoe who are able to take a longer term view and occasionally lead rather than just follow. For example given the current distibution of wealth it would be easy to construct a redistribution plan that would greatly benefit 60% of the population in the short term (at the possible cost of making everyone worse off in the long term) but it might still be popular enough to win an election with the majority of the population who live paycheck top paycheck....

Tough call, it's hard to understand why decisions are made for the supposed better of all without the clarification.

Should governments justify each spend and the reasons why and where they see the benefits?

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I understand your point, but delaying for another decade or two only potentially aides the "big two" with some of the electorate then thinking that to make an impact, you really need to just decide between the "big two".

What proportional representation would do is make sure that the big two try and appeal to all of the electorate as truly every single vote counts.

Change can't come quick enough for me.

I get your point too and there is a risk that (even more) people will be put off politics by being disenfranchised. An eighth of Britons voted UKIP and they get 1 seat less than 4x vote Tory and they get 330!!!!! !!!!!!?!

The UK has generally worked by protesters taking to the streets with the following chant, sung with a single voice:

What do we want?
Incremental change!
When do we want it?
After due consultation and proper consideration by committee!

Revolutionary change has generally been ruinous to the UK, and various bits of the UK before then (I await antrobus to correct me).

Generali

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/using-the-british-election-study-to-understand-the-great-polling-miss-2/#.VXqUn9N_XFp

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

....Revolutionary change has generally been ruinous to the UK, and various bits of the UK before then (I await antrobus to correct me).

Revolutionary change has generally been ruinous. Not just in the UK.

Although the Glorious Revolution might well be an exception.

Generali wrote: »

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/using-the-british-election-study-to-understand-the-great-polling-miss-2/#.VXqUn9N_XFp

Of course, the answer to the question, 'Why were the polls wrong' might well be different to the question, 'Why the Tories won'.