Conservatives look to be winners in surprise UK election

[brewsterbudgen]

On thing for sure the I am glade that labour will not have enough seats to form a coalition with the SNP.

with so many loony SNP MP's I do feel it is time England has it's own devolved government to equal that of the Scotish, Welsh and Northern Ireland.

Whom amongst the SNP MPs do you consider to be loonies? With 49 of them new to the house, I am not too sure which of them are mad, which are crazy, which are stupid etc. Maybe you can enlighten us all with your expert, critical analysis of these new members?

All...

They are a single issue party, they want another referendum or independence, they have no interest in the UK as a single entity.

This election is flawed democracy and unrepresentative of the peoples wishes.

Can any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

Er, there was a referendum on changing the electoral system in the last parliament and it was overwhelmingly rejected by the British people.

[MAJIC]

On thing for sure the I am glade that labour will not have enough seats to form a coalition with the SNP.

with so many loony SNP MP's I do feel it is time England has it's own devolved government to equal that of the Scotish, Welsh and Northern Ireland.

Whom amongst the SNP MPs do you consider to be loonies? With 49 of them new to the house, I am not too sure which of them are mad, which are crazy, which are stupid etc. Maybe you can enlighten us all with your expert, critical analysis of these new members?

All...

They are a single issue party, they want another referendum or independence, they have no interest in the UK as a single entity.

This election is flawed democracy and unrepresentative of the peoples wishes.

Can any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

Er, there was a referendum on changing the electoral system in the last parliament and it was overwhelmingly rejected by the British people.

As far as I know of,no Referendum papers ever came for me!

[brewsterbudgen]

On thing for sure the I am glade that labour will not have enough seats to form a coalition with the SNP.

with so many loony SNP MP's I do feel it is time England has it's own devolved government to equal that of the Scotish, Welsh and Northern Ireland.

Whom amongst the SNP MPs do you consider to be loonies? With 49 of them new to the house, I am not too sure which of them are mad, which are crazy, which are stupid etc. Maybe you can enlighten us all with your expert, critical analysis of these new members?

All...

They are a single issue party, they want another referendum or independence, they have no interest in the UK as a single entity.

This election is flawed democracy and unrepresentative of the peoples wishes.

Can any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

Er, there was a referendum on changing the electoral system in the last parliament and it was overwhelmingly rejected by the British people.

As far as I know of,no Referendum papers ever came for me!

Why? Aren't you registered to vote?

[SheungWan]

There is a god after all, wheee!

And Harriet Harman gone as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXpty_1xo4

Isn't she acting Labour leader now?

Yes she is but has said that she will not be in the running for either new leader or deputy leader. So just a few months of her screeching.

At least we know it won't be Ed Balls.

[pitrevie]

So go and live in Glasgow?

If Wales and Scotland were separated from England the Labour Party would be finished.

Pretty much reflected in their Scottish results.

Well that is clearly nonsense, Labour have had majorities in the past which even if you strip out the Scottish and Welsh MPs would still have left them the governing party.

[teatree]

The fact that UKIP got 3-4 times more votes than SNP yet SNP have 56 times more seats is the elephant in the living room that the establishment doesn't want to talk about.

13% of the popluation vote for a party and they get one seat, this is not democracy.

[teatree]

'An AFFRONT to democracy' - Ukip would have won 83 SEATS under a 'fair' voting system

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/575888/Ukip-would-have-83-seats-under-proportional-representation

[brewsterbudgen]

The fact that UKIP got 3-4 times more votes than SNP yet SNP have 56 times more seats is the elephant in the living room that the establishment doesn't want to talk about.

13% of the popluation vote for a party and they get one seat, this is not democracy.

'An AFFRONT to democracy' - Ukip would have won 83 SEATS under a 'fair' voting system

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/575888/Ukip-would-have-83-seats-under-proportional-representation

No point in complaining when the British people rejected a more proportional voting system in referendum.

[teatree]

The fact that UKIP got 3-4 times more votes than SNP yet SNP have 56 times more seats is the elephant in the living room that the establishment doesn't want to talk about.

13% of the popluation vote for a party and they get one seat, this is not democracy.

'An AFFRONT to democracy' - Ukip would have won 83 SEATS under a 'fair' voting system

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/575888/Ukip-would-have-83-seats-under-proportional-representation

No point in complaining when the British people rejected a more proportional voting system in referendum.

The referendum was about whether to change to an 'Alternative Vote' system NOT a 'Proprtional Representation' system.

The two are not the same. I want to see PR not AV.

[nontabury]

On thing for sure the I am glade that labour will not have enough seats to form a coalition with the SNP.

with so many loony SNP MP's I do feel it is time England has it's own devolved government to equal that of the Scotish, Welsh and Northern Ireland.

Whom amongst the SNP MPs do you consider to be loonies? With 49 of them new to the house, I am not too sure which of them are mad, which are crazy, which are stupid etc. Maybe you can enlighten us all with your expert, critical analysis of these new members?

All...

They are a single issue party, they want another referendum or independence, they have no interest in the UK as a single entity.

This election is flawed democracy and unrepresentative of the peoples wishes.

Can any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

Er, there was a referendum on changing the electoral system in the last parliament and it was overwhelmingly rejected by the British people.

As far as I know of,no Referendum papers ever came for me!

Why? Aren't you registered to vote?

I was registered to vote in this election,yet I never received any voting paper.

[brewsterbudgen]

On thing for sure the I am glade that labour will not have enough seats to form a coalition with the SNP.

with so many loony SNP MP's I do feel it is time England has it's own devolved government to equal that of the Scotish, Welsh and Northern Ireland.

Whom amongst the SNP MPs do you consider to be loonies? With 49 of them new to the house, I am not too sure which of them are mad, which are crazy, which are stupid etc. Maybe you can enlighten us all with your expert, critical analysis of these new members?

All...

They are a single issue party, they want another referendum or independence, they have no interest in the UK as a single entity.

This election is flawed democracy and unrepresentative of the peoples wishes.

Can any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

Er, there was a referendum on changing the electoral system in the last parliament and it was overwhelmingly rejected by the British people.

As far as I know of,no Referendum papers ever came for me!

Why? Aren't you registered to vote?

I was registered to vote in this election,yet I never received any voting paper.

It's easy to check and it's done online, except the actual voting? I used the postal proxy vote.

[RuamRudy]

an any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

The SNP stood in 59 constituencies and, nationally, gained more than 50% of all votes cast. From a union perspective, their winning 95% of the seats may not suit you but from a national perspective, it perfectly reflects the will of the majority of Scottish people.

Maybe a better question would be why the Nasty party, with only 37% of the vote nationally, can have a majority. The SNP has a real mandate to rule Scotland; the Tories have no such mandate.

[emilymat]

I promised a poster I would eat humble pie if the Tories were returned with a majority. So be it, and I do.

Just a couple of comments.

1. We are hearing a lot about why the polls prior to the election and the exit poll were so different. There is a new phrase 'shy Tories'. I think I understand that. They mean that many people prior to the election tell pollsters they are a 'don't know' but in reality, whilst they perhaps recognise that they should consider the problems of the poor and less well-off, when they enter the ballot box that is cast aside. They always intended to vote Tory. I guess it's human nature. So, pre-election polls get it wrong.

2. To my simple mind, the Scottish referendum changed everything. A vast majority of the 45% who voted 'yes' were always going to vote SNP at this. election. Add to that the 'no' voters who still wanted increased influence at Westminster and you have an unstoppable bandwagon. I'm not a Scot, but understand many of the frustrations they feel after living there for many years. One of my regrets is that someone like Douglas Alexander - a politician I felt could have been an excellent leader of the Labour Party - has lost his seat to a 20 year old student, who is not going to attend parliament but go back to university.

I genuinely wish the young lady well, she is clearly very 'savvy' for her age. However, the voters are supposed to be electing a constituency MP to represent them locally and in Parliament. In a sense, that is what is now wrong with a flawed voting system. How many times have we heard that politicians should have 'experience of working in the real world' before they enter parliament?.

I actually think the best prime minister we never had was John Smith. Had he lived there would have been no Blair/Brown demons, which have been the source of so much ridicule and hatred, by the press and some of the public.

I think it's obvious I didn't vote for the Conservatives, I voted Labour. I fear we are in for a difficult time for the less well off over the next five years. We will now see the 'infighting' between the Euro sceptics and supporters of the EC in the Tory party in the run up to the referendum. I suspect that independence for Scotland is not far away, and good luck to them.

This result of a Conservative majority ironically suits the SNP in their quest for independence - whatever might be said by the leaders at the moment.

As for the Lib/Dems. I told my daughter 5 years ago that the lure of ministerial cars and power was too much for them to refuse. (33% of their MPs in 2010 became government ministers - many of course in a junior capacity). They were always going to try and move away from the Tories in the run up to the election and regain an identity - but it was too late, They were tainted and had angered so many of their 2010 voters by going into coalition, destruction was certain. It was the Tories who swept them aside in the SW of England particularly.

As JFK said. 'Those who ride the tiger, end up inside'

Oh yes. I bet you Nigel Farage is back as UK leader by the autumn. Any takers?

Bit of a rant all this, but I had to get it off my chest and I can't do that with my Thai neighbour who wondered why I had been glued to the TV yesterday from 5am Thai time, until the evening.

[samran]

The little englanders having a bit of post election tanty.

'We woz robbed!!!'

A fringe party in each consitutency is still a fringe party, no matter how you try and stack up the votes.

If you had used the australian system, first preference UKIP votes would have just been transferred to the next preferred party after the first round of counting.

[jayboy]

I promised a poster I would eat humble pie if the Tories were returned with a majority. So be it, and I do.

Just a couple of comments.

1. We are hearing a lot about why the polls prior to the election and the exit poll were so different. There is a new phrase 'shy Tories'. I think I understand that. They mean that many people prior to the election tell pollsters they are a 'don't know' but in reality, whilst they perhaps recognise that they should consider the problems of the poor and less well-off, when they enter the ballot box that is cast aside. They always intended to vote Tory. I guess it's human nature. So, pre-election polls get it wrong.

2. To my simple mind, the Scottish referendum changed everything. A vast majority of the 45% who voted 'yes' were always going to vote SNP at this. election. Add to that the 'no' voters who still wanted increased influence at Westminster and you have an unstoppable bandwagon. I'm not a Scot, but understand many of the frustrations they feel after living there for many years. One of my regrets is that someone like Douglas Alexander - a politician I felt could have been an excellent leader of the Labour Party - has lost his seat to a 20 year old student, who is not going to attend parliament but go back to university.

I genuinely wish the young lady well, she is clearly very 'savvy' for her age. However, the voters are supposed to be electing a constituency MP to represent them locally and in Parliament. In a sense, that is what is now wrong with a flawed voting system. How many times have we heard that politicians should have 'experience of working in the real world' before they enter parliament?.

I actually think the best prime minister we never had was John Smith. Had he lived there would have been no Blair/Brown demons, which have been the source of so much ridicule and hatred, by the press and some of the public.

I think it's obvious I didn't vote for the Conservatives, I voted Labour. I fear we are in for a difficult time for the less well off over the next five years. We will now see the 'infighting' between the Euro sceptics and supporters of the EC in the Tory party in the run up to the referendum. I suspect that independence for Scotland is not far away, and good luck to them.

This result of a Conservative majority ironically suits the SNP in their quest for independence - whatever might be said by the leaders at the moment.

As for the Lib/Dems. I told my daughter 5 years ago that the lure of ministerial cars and power was too much for them to refuse. (33% of their MPs in 2010 became government ministers - many of course in a junior capacity). They were always going to try and move away from the Tories in the run up to the election and regain an identity - but it was too late, They were tainted and had angered so many of their 2010 voters by going into coalition, destruction was certain. It was the Tories who swept them aside in the SW of England particularly.

As JFK said. 'Those who ride the tiger, end up inside'

Oh yes. I bet you Nigel Farage is back as UK leader by the autumn. Any takers?

Bit of a rant all this, but I had to get it off my chest and I can't do that with my Thai neighbour who wondered why I had been glued to the TV yesterday from 5am Thai time, until the evening.

Like you I was stuck to the telly yesterday.On the subject of shy Tories I think you are right in identifying the issue but partly wrong in understanding the phenonomen, ie putting the final choice down to selfishness as opposed to considedring the good of the community/nation.I agree however there is a brand issue.To be a Tory isn't that cool especially among the young.But Britain like it or not is a deeply conservative middle class country.The traditional industrial working class - the Labour party bedrock - is very small.I was struck during the campaign how little the Labour side talked about wealth creation, ie the process that enables social expenditure on hospitals,schools, pensions etc.Business and finance were seen as sectors that needed to be curbed, restricted or punished.This is very much the view of the small army of public sector professionals whose views can be clearly seen in the comments section of their house journal,The Guardian.THey dont understand the country is dependent on succesful businesses.One of their high priests Lord Kinnock - admittedly a ridiculous windbag - yesterday said that the British electorate was selfish and stupid for switching to Tory opinions once in the polling booths.All over the UK right minded people are shell shocked because the hoi polloi voted the wrong way from good and "educate" people. (has a familar ring to those of us in Thailand).But the hoi polloi were right as they were in Thailand.Ordinary people know what they were doing and we should trust their judgement.

[RickBradford]

The referendum was about whether to change to an 'Alternative Vote' system NOT a 'Proprtional Representation' system.

The two are not the same. I want to see PR not AV.

The only drawback to PR is that you lose that kind of "constituency" feel - you vote for a faceless Party, not a local individual.

One way round that is to create 'regions' of 10 seats or so, with recognisable MPs, though you vote for your party. Then you use the D'Hondt method (which is basically proportional) to allocate seats.

Take Brighton and the surrounds in this election as an example (9 seats). A good example as it contains an outlier (a Green win).

Vote shares were CON 44%, Labour 21%, UKIP 13%, LD 13% Green 10%

Actual seats won were CON 7, Labour 1, Green 1

Under D'Hondt it would have been CON 4, LAB 2, UKIP 1, LD 1, Green 1.

Another example is the 8 seats around Edinburgh:

Vote shares SNP 45%,LAB 29%, CON 15%, LD 7%, Green 3%

Actual seats were SNP 7, LAB 1

Under D'Hondt SNP 4, LAB 3, CON 1

Cornwall was swept 6-0 by CON with a 43% share of the vote. D'Hondt would have given 1 seat each to LD, UKIP, Labor, but none for Mebyon Kernow (1.94%)

[pitrevie]

I promised a poster I would eat humble pie if the Tories were returned with a majority. So be it, and I do.

Just a couple of comments.

1. We are hearing a lot about why the polls prior to the election and the exit poll were so different. There is a new phrase 'shy Tories'. I think I understand that. They mean that many people prior to the election tell pollsters they are a 'don't know' but in reality, whilst they perhaps recognise that they should consider the problems of the poor and less well-off, when they enter the ballot box that is cast aside. They always intended to vote Tory. I guess it's human nature. So, pre-election polls get it wrong.

2. To my simple mind, the Scottish referendum changed everything. A vast majority of the 45% who voted 'yes' were always going to vote SNP at this. election. Add to that the 'no' voters who still wanted increased influence at Westminster and you have an unstoppable bandwagon. I'm not a Scot, but understand many of the frustrations they feel after living there for many years. One of my regrets is that someone like Douglas Alexander - a politician I felt could have been an excellent leader of the Labour Party - has lost his seat to a 20 year old student, who is not going to attend parliament but go back to university.

I genuinely wish the young lady well, she is clearly very 'savvy' for her age. However, the voters are supposed to be electing a constituency MP to represent them locally and in Parliament. In a sense, that is what is now wrong with a flawed voting system. How many times have we heard that politicians should have 'experience of working in the real world' before they enter parliament?.

I actually think the best prime minister we never had was John Smith. Had he lived there would have been no Blair/Brown demons, which have been the source of so much ridicule and hatred, by the press and some of the public.

I think it's obvious I didn't vote for the Conservatives, I voted Labour. I fear we are in for a difficult time for the less well off over the next five years. We will now see the 'infighting' between the Euro sceptics and supporters of the EC in the Tory party in the run up to the referendum. I suspect that independence for Scotland is not far away, and good luck to them.

This result of a Conservative majority ironically suits the SNP in their quest for independence - whatever might be said by the leaders at the moment.

As for the Lib/Dems. I told my daughter 5 years ago that the lure of ministerial cars and power was too much for them to refuse. (33% of their MPs in 2010 became government ministers - many of course in a junior capacity). They were always going to try and move away from the Tories in the run up to the election and regain an identity - but it was too late, They were tainted and had angered so many of their 2010 voters by going into coalition, destruction was certain. It was the Tories who swept them aside in the SW of England particularly.

As JFK said. 'Those who ride the tiger, end up inside'

Oh yes. I bet you Nigel Farage is back as UK leader by the autumn. Any takers?

Bit of a rant all this, but I had to get it off my chest and I can't do that with my Thai neighbour who wondered why I had been glued to the TV yesterday from 5am Thai time, until the evening.

Well I am also one that didn't want to see the Tories back in power but nevertheless I predicted that they would in fact be returned with a small majority just disappointed I am right. I read yesterday on this forum that their return was good news for us expats which is the case as we have seen the pound rise on just that news. However two years from now with a referendum I fear the pound will be going in the other direction and if the vote is in favour of us withdrawing then buckle up for a rough ride. I think a vote in favour of withdrawal would also trigger another Scottish referendum as the Scots and probably the Welsh are far more pro EU than is the case in England.

I also predicted a year ago that in 10 years the Euro would be worth more than the pound and I still stand by that. Withdraw from the EU and the only people who make the real decisions will be the financial markets.

[Basil B]

So go and live in Glasgow?

If Wales and Scotland were separated from England the Labour Party would be finished.

Pretty much reflected in their Scottish results.

Well that is clearly nonsense, Labour have had majorities in the past which even if you strip out the Scottish and Welsh MPs would still have left them the governing party.

You have a long memory...

[Basil B]

After every general election the smaller parties are always saying unfair,lets have PR but look at the percentages of votes ,per party,.

Con 36%

Lab 30%

The rest 34%

If we had PR they would be no work done ,only inter party horse trading.

Back in the 80's with Italy's PR system they was a general election almost every year,not saying the uk is like Italy,but It could be say , every 2 years.As It is we have voter apathy, what would the turn out be if we had PR .

As ,has been said the uk had a chance to change the system , I for one am glad they did not.

Flawed Logic...

Take into account 66.4% turn out, that means 33.6% of those registered to vote did not vote and that does not count those eligible to vote who did not register.

Then how many voted not for the party they wanted to win on the basis that it would be a wasted vote, but tactically voting to keep out the party they fear worst.

[IMA_FARANG]

But it is not all "fun and games" for Mr. Cameroun and his Tories.

He made an election promise to have a referendum in 2017 on renegotiating the terms of keeping the U.K in the Eurozone..... and now he's got to abide by that promise.

A lot of countries in the Eurozone are NOT happy with the idea of the U.K. renegotiating their contract with the Eurozone, and they may not be willing to give further concessions to the U.K.

And the right wing of the Tories..... those that seem to think Baggy Maggie was a saint is unwilling to make any compromise on what they believe is the holy word as issued by Baggy Maggie.

So the next two years may be rather troublesome.

As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, you may end up actually getting it:.

And not even to mention the "minor problem" of Scotland and the SNP controlling it.

Edited May 9, 2015 by IMA_FARANG

[Asheron]

But it is not all "fun and games" for Mr. Cameroun and his Tories.

He made an election promise to have a referendum in 2017 on renegotiating the terms of keeping the U.K in the Eurozone..... and now he's got to abide by that promise.

A lot of countries in the Eurozone are NOT happy with the idea of the U.K. renegotiating their contract with the Eurozone, and they may not be willing to give further concessions to the U.K.

And the right wing of the Tories..... those that seem to think Baggy Maggie was a saint is unwilling to make any compromise on what they believe is the holy word as issued by Baggy Maggie.

So the next two years may be rather troublesome.

As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, you may end up actually getting it:.

And not even to mention the "minor problem" of Scotland and the SNP controlling it.

To enter, or stay, in EU as a richer country is like anyone saying "here, you can have my money and you can freely come to my house and sleep there and eat what you find in the fridge oh and you can use the car how you like".

Two things can't co-exist: massimmigration and welfare state (which all of the northern european countries are).

[pitrevie]

So go and live in Glasgow?

If Wales and Scotland were separated from England the Labour Party would be finished.

Pretty much reflected in their Scottish results.

Well that is clearly nonsense, Labour have had majorities in the past which even if you strip out the Scottish and Welsh MPs would still have left them the governing party.

You have a long memory...

Not really Blair would have had a majority in parliament even with the Scottish and Welsh MP's discounted.

[Chicog]

And not even to mention the "minor problem" of Scotland and the SNP controlling it.

Scotland and the SNP controlling what?

The Conservatives have an absolute majority.

More to the point, less Scots voted for the SNP this time round than voted for Independence, and even then only 38% of the electorate voted Yes.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Chicog

[dabhand]

an any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

The SNP stood in 59 constituencies and, nationally, gained more than 50% of all votes cast. From a union perspective, their winning 95% of the seats may not suit you but from a national perspective, it perfectly reflects the will of the majority of Scottish people.

Maybe a better question would be why the Nasty party, with only 37% of the vote nationally, can have a majority. The SNP has a real mandate to rule Scotland; the Tories have no such mandate.

Think you will find that SNP actually gained less than 50% of the votes cast in Scotland. So your comment about 'their winning 95% of the seats.....perfectly reflects the will of the majority of Scottish people' does not stack up with reality.

[RuamRudy]

an any of you professed democracy lovers explain to me how the 'over' 4 million voters who voted for the greens and UKIP now have 2 MPs representing them when less than 1.5 million voters who voted SNP now have 56 Scottish MP's having a significant say on laws that apply to England only!!! If that is not twisted politics then what is?

In relative terms, of the number that have voted for the SNP to get 56 MPs - 2.66 x that number returns a meagre 2 MPs (1 UKIP + 1 green) - they should have had 150 MPs on that basis, not 2!! .

It looks as though the Tories will have won about 50% of the seats with the votes cast for them in the mid 40s - is someone going to tell me that, say 45% of the vote is a majority of the voters.

If that is democracy then they can stuff it. They should change the archaic voting system in the UK as it is deeply flawed (and undemocratic) as this clearly illustrates!!

It's the UK version of voting! what we have is called "first past the post" what we really need is a change to "Proportional representational" what this really means is: votes to different parties are divided up evenly according to how many votes are polled e.g the SNP got 57 MPs for 1.5 million votes, while the UKIP Party polled 4 Million votes,and only got 2 MPs in Parliament. The anomaly is glaringly obviously!

The SNP stood in 59 constituencies and, nationally, gained more than 50% of all votes cast. From a union perspective, their winning 95% of the seats may not suit you but from a national perspective, it perfectly reflects the will of the majority of Scottish people.

Maybe a better question would be why the Nasty party, with only 37% of the vote nationally, can have a majority. The SNP has a real mandate to rule Scotland; the Tories have no such mandate.

Think you will find that SNP actually gained less than 50% of the votes cast in Scotland. So your comment about 'their winning 95% of the seats.....perfectly reflects the will of the majority of Scottish people' does not stack up with reality.

I think you will find that neither of us are correct. According to the BBC, the SNP took exactly 50% of all Scottish votes cast. Labour were second at 24% and the Nasty party took a paltry 14% (it saddens me that so many people in Scotland would support them) so my comments are correct - the SNP is perfectly mandated and Cameron has no moral legitimacy in Scotland.

[JAG]

The cherry on the cake was the thumping defeat of the thoroughly obnoxious Gorgeous George in Bradford.

George Galloway lost? Whoopeeee!

Good riddance to that nasty waste of oxygen.

Did you hear/see his speech at the count?

Barking nonsense about hyenas dancing on a lions grave. I rather assume that he regards himself as a lion!

[Jingthing]

The cherry on the cake was the thumping defeat of the thoroughly obnoxious Gorgeous George in Bradford.

George Galloway lost? Whoopeeee!

Good riddance to that nasty waste of oxygen.

Did you hear/see his speech at the count?

Barking nonsense about hyenas dancing on a lions grave. I rather assume that he regards himself as a lion!

He was quoting a poem by Saddam Hussein ...

[RuamRudy]

The cherry on the cake was the thumping defeat of the thoroughly obnoxious Gorgeous George in Bradford.

George Galloway lost? Whoopeeee!

Good riddance to that nasty waste of oxygen.

Did you hear/see his speech at the count?

Barking nonsense about hyenas dancing on a lions grave. I rather assume that he regards himself as a lion!

The man turned into a total balloon in the past few years, but his demolition of Norm Coleman in the US Senate was a joy to behold.

[Chicog]

I think you will find that neither of us are correct. According to the BBC, the SNP took exactly 50% of all Scottish votes cast. Labour were second at 24% and the Nasty party took a paltry 14% (it saddens me that so many people in Scotland would support them) so my comments are correct - the SNP is perfectly mandated and Cameron has no moral legitimacy in Scotland.

The British government still rules Scotland. The majority of Scots voted to remain under British rule when asked that question.

This election had nothing to do with independence, more to do with Jewish millionaire 'Ted' Milliband being a champagne socialist; not being very representative of the British working class; and most people in the UK realising it.

Put it this way: Only 1.6 million voters out of an electorate of 4.3 million (38%) voted to break up the Union.

Only 1.4 million voted for the SNP in this election so there is neither a moral argument nor mandate against British rule.

Of course that won't stop the Krankie rattling her cage again.

[Jonmarleesco]

'... Christopher Gardner, a 34-year-old finance industry official, put his trust in the Conservatives. "There are some issues that have been caused by austerity previously ... They're the only people that I'm confident will resolve that."' If the bankers don't yet again stuff it up.