Unexpected triumph means Cameron can govern UK on his own

[Jingthing]

Most modern Jews don't keep Kosher, in case you didn't know.

Being a Jew doesn't need to mean religious observance.

There is the ethnic factor and yes the cultural factor.

If you're born of a Jewish mother, you're a Jew ... and you can eat all the ham sandwiches you like, you're still a Jewish person.

Religious Jews would say a "bad" Jew ... but whatever.

There is a hit t.v. show now going in the U.S. called The Goldbergs. The lead actor who plays the father, Mr. Goldberg quite often pronounces: I LOVE BACON.

[Basil B]

All this is a product of what people mistakenly believe is "democracy". Democracy and competitive politics are mutually exclusive. How can people expect politicans to play well together when they have been totally immersed in the culture of defeating their opposition? The days of a politican being elected from the community he lives in are long gone. Now they are in it for the money and power, paying lip service to the morals of the issues those communities face. It's probably too late to change the system into a true democracy, so now people vote for the "least offensive" option, not for the person who actually comes from their community and truly understands the issues.

Solutions --

Make the result depend on the %age of the ELECTORATE -- not of votes cast.

No candidates -- make people write down the name of the person they want to represent them.

No candidates -- people can vote for whoever they want -- anyone who appears on the electoral roll of the community they live in.

All perfectly possible with an electronic voting system

Some people do not want to be elected, the process is simple you do not have to be a member of any political party to stand for election.

You do have to declare you are willing to stand and have a Proposer, a Seconder and ten other persons nominate you who are on the electoral register, not difficult to get unless you really are unpopular.

When standing you agree to abide by electoral law, just imagine a person who had never agreed to stand as a candidate won because so many people put his name on the ballot paper just because he bought a round of drinks in the local pub the night before.

And in a parliamentary constituency with an average of 73,000 voters just how many John Smiths do you think there are?

[Prbkk]

Most modern Jews don't keep Kosher, in case you didn't know.

Being a Jew doesn't need to mean religious observance.

There is the ethnic factor and yes the cultural factor.

If you're born of a Jewish mother, you're a Jew ... and you can eat all the ham sandwiches you like, you're still a Jewish person.

Religious Jews would say a "bad" Jew ... but whatever.

There is a hit t.v. show now going in the U.S. called The Goldbergs. The lead actor who plays the father, Mr. Goldberg quite often pronounces: I LOVE BACON.

I had no idea Miliband is Jewish and I doubt that there was an issue with that in the electorate, bacon sandwich or not. The perception that he is a wishy-washy , pale pink, weak sister is more germane... far too 'nice' as well.

[meltingpot2015]

Whatever he is, he is not a homophobe. Cameron i am pretty sure is not. His supporters on this forum clearly are.

Btw. Hitler was a vegetarian apparently. "NIce" to animals, not as "nice" towards people.

[Jingthing]

Eating food with the "common people" can be dangerous for politicians.

But in some cultures, as in the USA, it's more or less required.

I think the picture hurt Milliband mostly because it looked so awful and insincere, but he would have lost badly anyway.

[Humberstone]

Eating food with the "common people" can be dangerous for politicians.

But in some cultures, as in the USA, it's more or less required.

I think the picture hurt Milliband mostly because it looked so awful and insincere, but he would have lost badly anyway.

Too true- David Cameron ate a hot dog with a knife and fork

[thaibeachlovers]

The conservatives are now a party machine. The election campaign was like a jaggernaut. At one level tories (conservatives) were appealing to the undecided and also floating (tactical) voters, saying you have to vote tory or your vote will not count, it will be a wasted vote.

On another level, it backed a campaign (well thought-out) undermining the leader of the other parties. Especially, Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband.

1) Nick Clegg - When the lib-dems were campaigning. The tory party machine got a student to ask Clegg for selfie, and the student was told to drop his pants deliberately to cause Nick Clegg Embarrasment and ridicule. it scores points against Clegg through the electorate, also it puts Clegg off the election campaign, even briefly.

At one of the televised debates, a man asks Nick Clegg "What are your plans when you are kicked out after the General Election" - Nick Clegg was quick to respond "Charming!, no, I don't (have any plans)". That man knew the result of the election. He was so confident that the Tories would win. ELECTIONS SHOULD BE UNPREDICTABLE. The polling organisations could have got it wrong due to two reasons. One, due to the shy tories, two, due to some tory interference. Or a mixture of both.

2) Ed Milliband - Tories got all the media (Broadsheet and tabloids) to back them. Did you see that picture on the front page of the sun of Ed Milliband eating a bacon sandwich. Just that picture would have reached millions. It was on the front page, and it would have cost Ed and his party a lot of votes.

At one of the televised debates, a businesswoman owning a local business appears asked Ed Milliband as to why she should trust his party after last time and that big businesses (e.g tesco) are suffering. She was a stooge. She was playing homage to the Tories.

So all of the above happened at during the campaigning. In the UK it is illegal to smear an opponent in an election (unlike the USA where it is allowed), so all of the above happened covertly. We are talking something big, that's what a party machine is.

Look, this kind of election by Media has happened before, if you were visiting Australia during the Aus 2013 Federal Elections, you would have been able to tell how much the Media played a role in getting Abott and his boys elected.

At another level we have something introduced from the top. The Scottish referendum. Tories introduced it knowing full well that, if the SNP lost the referendum (i.e. Scotland remained part of the UK) that would fuel SNP supporters to send a message to Downing Street at the next election. i.e. SNP to do well in the General Election 2015. Is this bad?, for everyone that would like Scotland to remain as part of the UK. Yes. For tories wanting gains over labour at the election. NO!, its a welcome prospect. As it happens Labour lost many seats in Scotland, so did the lib Dems. Douglas Alexander and Danny Alexander both casualties.

The voters were, I'm afraid, duped to a large extend by the media in to believing that a vote for a "minor" party would result in a unpredictable result. SO anyone (mainly undecideds) then voted Tory at the last minute. This is one of the things with first past the post, the tactical vote, is an unsavory part. It can damage the two "major" parties, so if the tories capitalize on this and the media shouts this from the rooftops, it could sway, most of the tactical/undecided voters. Those voters could have done three things..actually four things. One - To vote for their minor party (UKIP, Greens). And there was a large number of votes for these parties, however, these votes did not translate to seats.

Two - Go to vote but spoil the ballot - To say I am not happy with any of the "major" parties. They could have wrote on the ballot "I vote for a more fairer PR electoral system"

Three - Not vote at all. Actually only 66.1% voted.

Four - Vote Conservative - A lot of undecided voters voted Conservative.

The only change from the politics as usual is to change the Electoral system to a more competitive one. (Under First-Past-the-Post, some seats are so safe, that there is very little point casting a ballot for another candidate other than the incumbent) PR is not the same, it provides other candidates a chance. But for any change in the electoral system there needs to be genuine effort by a) those holding power (the elite) AND/OR

by the people.

a) will not push for it - for obvious reasons.

It can only come from For that to happen the people will need to do something brave like what I have suggested above. i.e. Demand it at the next ballot.

If people are stupid enough to believe the propaganda of any political party, they deserve what they get.

Blair had two massive majorities and completely wasted his time in power being Bush's poodle. They are all as bad as each other, so it doesn't matter who gets in.

Just know that the Tories will get the economy fixed by punishing the poor and middle class, and Labour will waste all the money on stupid things, Brown wasted all that money on the NHS and got nothing for the people out of it, just the bureaucrats, the consultants and the managers ( I worked in the NHS so I know ).

PR is a poisoned chalice. FPP is better.

[MaeJoMTB]

Some people do not want to be elected, the process is simple you do not have to be a member of any political party to stand for election.

You do have to declare you are willing to stand and have a Proposer, a Seconder and ten other persons nominate you who are on the electoral register, not difficult to get unless you really are unpopular.

When standing you agree to abide by electoral law, just imagine a person who had never agreed to stand as a candidate won because so many people put his name on the ballot paper just because he bought a round of drinks in the local pub the night before.

You forgot the 500gbp deposit to stand as an MP, which you are likely to lose.

And the 150gbp to register your own party with the electoral commission.

Edited May 15, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[Basil B]

Some people do not want to be elected, the process is simple you do not have to be a member of any political party to stand for election.

You do have to declare you are willing to stand and have a Proposer, a Seconder and ten other persons nominate you who are on the electoral register, not difficult to get unless you really are unpopular.

When standing you agree to abide by electoral law, just imagine a person who had never agreed to stand as a candidate won because so many people put his name on the ballot paper just because he bought a round of drinks in the local pub the night before.

You forgot the 500gbp deposit to stand as an MP, which you are likely to lose.

And the 150gbp to register your own party with the electoral commission.

For Council Elections No Deposit Required

For Parliamentary Elections £500 but if you poll over 5% You Get it back anyway.

For European Elections it is £5000, but "way hay" you only need 2.5% to get it refunded.

To stand as a candidate in any election you do not have to stand for any party, you can be an Independent, therefore you would not have to register a party, of course if wanted to say you were a member of "The Monster Raving Mad Party" you would have to register it first and the £150 is insignificant compared with the all the hoop you will have to jump through, and rules that go with it.

[jpinx]

All this is a product of what people mistakenly believe is "democracy". Democracy and competitive politics are mutually exclusive. How can people expect politicans to play well together when they have been totally immersed in the culture of defeating their opposition? The days of a politican being elected from the community he lives in are long gone. Now they are in it for the money and power, paying lip service to the morals of the issues those communities face. It's probably too late to change the system into a true democracy, so now people vote for the "least offensive" option, not for the person who actually comes from their community and truly understands the issues.

Solutions --

Make the result depend on the %age of the ELECTORATE -- not of votes cast.

No candidates -- make people write down the name of the person they want to represent them.

No candidates -- people can vote for whoever they want -- anyone who appears on the electoral roll of the community they live in.

All perfectly possible with an electronic voting system

Some people do not want to be elected, the process is simple you do not have to be a member of any political party to stand for election.

You do have to declare you are willing to stand and have a Proposer, a Seconder and ten other persons nominate you who are on the electoral register, not difficult to get unless you really are unpopular.

When standing you agree to abide by electoral law, just imagine a person who had never agreed to stand as a candidate won because so many people put his name on the ballot paper just because he bought a round of drinks in the local pub the night before.

And in a parliamentary constituency with an average of 73,000 voters just how many John Smiths do you think there are?

If you don't have to be a member of some party - why do they want £150 to register the party you represent?

Aside from that -- I did say that it is too late to make such fundamental changes, but I stand by the assertion that real democracy and competitive politics are mutually exclusive.

Edit to say that I just saw your later reply

Is it correct to say that a person standing must reside in the constituency?

Edited May 15, 2015 by jpinx

[eliotness]

LOL! Lots of sore losers here. When you can't win, you want to change the rules of the game. Sounds like some of you have been too long in Thailand.

You mean the rules that give the prize to the first past the post? Not the ideal system, but it suits the two main parties; hence, it is unlikely to change any time soon.

Suited the SNP too.

And the Tories loved it, wiped out Labour's chance of a majority and introduced a Scottish bogeyman to help bring the tory voters "back home".

[eliotness]

Most modern Jews don't keep Kosher, in case you didn't know.

Being a Jew doesn't need to mean religious observance.

There is the ethnic factor and yes the cultural factor.

If you're born of a Jewish mother, you're a Jew ... and you can eat all the ham sandwiches you like, you're still a Jewish person.

Religious Jews would say a "bad" Jew ... but whatever.

There is a hit t.v. show now going in the U.S. called The Goldbergs. The lead actor who plays the father, Mr. Goldberg quite often pronounces: I LOVE BACON.

I had no idea Miliband is Jewish and I doubt that there was an issue with that in the electorate, bacon sandwich or not. The perception that he is a wishy-washy , pale pink, weak sister is more germane... far too 'nice' as well.

I agree with your comment, 99% of the British people wouldn't give a thought about his religion, but the fact he looked so uncomfortable eating his bacon sarnie, something which most working class Brits love, showed he is totally out of touch with the ordinary working man/woman. If he'd said "oh I prefer HP with mine not tomato ketchup" he might have scored big brownie points. I suppose, even for a lapsed jew, black pudding would have been totally out of the question. Ed is a champagne socialist, with no idea of "the common man" and would probably enjoyed a smoked salmon sandwich with a glass of champagne, as a certain Scottish miners leader used to insist on at every conference. I feel that his brother would have done so much better.

[nontabury]

Farage's resignation just a sham and cheap PR stunt.

It had been fixed, Farge instructed UKIP not to accept his resignation...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32732129

Well this must be true,the BBC said so, and as we know they are completely impartial and certainly not biased against UKIP. 5555[emoji1]

[meltingpot2015]

The conservatives are now a party machine. The election campaign was like a jaggernaut. At one level tories (conservatives) were appealing to the undecided and also floating (tactical) voters, saying you have to vote tory or your vote will not count, it will be a wasted vote.

On another level, it backed a campaign (well thought-out) undermining the leader of the other parties. Especially, Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband.

1) Nick Clegg - When the lib-dems were campaigning. The tory party machine got a student to ask Clegg for selfie, and the student was told to drop his pants deliberately to cause Nick Clegg Embarrasment and ridicule. it scores points against Clegg through the electorate, also it puts Clegg off the election campaign, even briefly.

At one of the televised debates, a man asks Nick Clegg "What are your plans when you are kicked out after the General Election" - Nick Clegg was quick to respond "Charming!, no, I don't (have any plans)". That man knew the result of the election. He was so confident that the Tories would win. ELECTIONS SHOULD BE UNPREDICTABLE. The polling organisations could have got it wrong due to two reasons. One, due to the shy tories, two, due to some tory interference. Or a mixture of both.

2) Ed Milliband - Tories got all the media (Broadsheet and tabloids) to back them. Did you see that picture on the front page of the sun of Ed Milliband eating a bacon sandwich. Just that picture would have reached millions. It was on the front page, and it would have cost Ed and his party a lot of votes.

At one of the televised debates, a businesswoman owning a local business appears asked Ed Milliband as to why she should trust his party after last time and that big businesses (e.g tesco) are suffering. She was a stooge. She was playing homage to the Tories.

So all of the above happened at during the campaigning. In the UK it is illegal to smear an opponent in an election (unlike the USA where it is allowed), so all of the above happened covertly. We are talking something big, that's what a party machine is.

Look, this kind of election by Media has happened before, if you were visiting Australia during the Aus 2013 Federal Elections, you would have been able to tell how much the Media played a role in getting Abott and his boys elected.

At another level we have something introduced from the top. The Scottish referendum. Tories introduced it knowing full well that, if the SNP lost the referendum (i.e. Scotland remained part of the UK) that would fuel SNP supporters to send a message to Downing Street at the next election. i.e. SNP to do well in the General Election 2015. Is this bad?, for everyone that would like Scotland to remain as part of the UK. Yes. For tories wanting gains over labour at the election. NO!, its a welcome prospect. As it happens Labour lost many seats in Scotland, so did the lib Dems. Douglas Alexander and Danny Alexander both casualties.

The voters were, I'm afraid, duped to a large extend by the media in to believing that a vote for a "minor" party would result in a unpredictable result. SO anyone (mainly undecideds) then voted Tory at the last minute. This is one of the things with first past the post, the tactical vote, is an unsavory part. It can damage the two "major" parties, so if the tories capitalize on this and the media shouts this from the rooftops, it could sway, most of the tactical/undecided voters. Those voters could have done three things..actually four things. One - To vote for their minor party (UKIP, Greens). And there was a large number of votes for these parties, however, these votes did not translate to seats.

Two - Go to vote but spoil the ballot - To say I am not happy with any of the "major" parties. They could have wrote on the ballot "I vote for a more fairer PR electoral system"

Three - Not vote at all. Actually only 66.1% voted.

Four - Vote Conservative - A lot of undecided voters voted Conservative.

The only change from the politics as usual is to change the Electoral system to a more competitive one. (Under First-Past-the-Post, some seats are so safe, that there is very little point casting a ballot for another candidate other than the incumbent) PR is not the same, it provides other candidates a chance. But for any change in the electoral system there needs to be genuine effort by a) those holding power (the elite) AND/OR

by the people.

a) will not push for it - for obvious reasons.

It can only come from For that to happen the people will need to do something brave like what I have suggested above. i.e. Demand it at the next ballot.

If people are stupid enough to believe the propaganda of any political party, they deserve what they get.

Blair had two massive majorities and completely wasted his time in power being Bush's poodle. They are all as bad as each other, so it doesn't matter who gets in.

Just know that the Tories will get the economy fixed by punishing the poor and middle class, and Labour will waste all the money on stupid things, Brown wasted all that money on the NHS and got nothing for the people out of it, just the bureaucrats, the consultants and the managers ( I worked in the NHS so I know ).

PR is a poisoned chalice. FPP is better.

PR is a poisoned chalice. FPP is better.

This is one of the best (worst) arguments (or is it opinions) that I have seen here on this Forum. There is no evidence to support it and what is written before it is something completely unrelated.

Why is FPP better? because,

1) its your opinion

2) it just is?

3) because you used to work for the NHS

4) it has one more letter than PR which only has only two letters.

5) this way people get what they deserve?

at the 2015 UK general election, the conservatives only secured 37% of the popular vote. With a turnout of 66%, that translates to a a meagre 24% of support. So many are actually questioning if they deserve this outcome. Hence, the protests that are going on in UK. They are saying we did not vote for such an outcome. It is purely due to an anomaly in the system. So people are asking, is there a mandate for the conservatives to govern?. Does Cameron have a mandate to govern.?

Brown wasted all that money on the NHS and got nothing for the people out of it, just the bureaucrats, the consultants and the managers

And Cameron has the best interest of the people?. Not a chance, he will sell the NHS off to big business. (During the start of the 2010 term, tories wanted to sell off the National Trust Forrests, but faced opposition from the lib-dems, so gave-up the idea. I thing tories will sell their Grandmother given half the chance) If Ed Milliband was in charge, would he have got the Unions involved in the NHS??, probably not with the NHS, but he would have been very close to the Unions, of course.

This is how come the two party system is not fit for purpose. It gives the two major parties (and those associated with these parties) too much power.

Edited May 15, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[meltingpot2015]

@jpinx:

All this is a product of what people mistakenly believe is "democracy". Democracy and competitive politics are mutually exclusive. How can people expect politicans to play well together when they have been totally immersed in the culture of defeating their opposition? The days of a politican being elected from the community he lives in are long gone. Now they are in it for the money and power, paying lip service to the morals of the issues those communities face. It's probably too late to change the system into a true democracy, so now people vote for the "least offensive" option, not for the person who actually comes from their community and truly understands the issues.

Solutions --
Make the result depend on the %age of the ELECTORATE -- not of votes cast.
No candidates -- make people write down the name of the person they want to represent them.
No candidates -- people can vote for whoever they want -- anyone who appears on the electoral roll of the community they live in.
All perfectly possible with an electronic voting system

How can people expect politicans to play well together when they have been totally immersed in the culture of defeating their opposition?

thats it. It's is the same as annihilation of the opposition, which is not the purpose (intent) of having these systems in place..(electoral system, judicial system etc)..

There are whats called rules of the game that all politicians have to play by. Unfortunately, the rules of the game under the First-past-the-post electoral system promote fierce competition between the political parties, but a lack of competition between candidates in safe seats.

Edited May 15, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[Basil B]

All this is a product of what people mistakenly believe is "democracy". Democracy and competitive politics are mutually exclusive. How can people expect politicans to play well together when they have been totally immersed in the culture of defeating their opposition? The days of a politican being elected from the community he lives in are long gone. Now they are in it for the money and power, paying lip service to the morals of the issues those communities face. It's probably too late to change the system into a true democracy, so now people vote for the "least offensive" option, not for the person who actually comes from their community and truly understands the issues.

Solutions --

Make the result depend on the %age of the ELECTORATE -- not of votes cast.

No candidates -- make people write down the name of the person they want to represent them.

No candidates -- people can vote for whoever they want -- anyone who appears on the electoral roll of the community they live in.

All perfectly possible with an electronic voting system

Some people do not want to be elected, the process is simple you do not have to be a member of any political party to stand for election.

You do have to declare you are willing to stand and have a Proposer, a Seconder and ten other persons nominate you who are on the electoral register, not difficult to get unless you really are unpopular.

When standing you agree to abide by electoral law, just imagine a person who had never agreed to stand as a candidate won because so many people put his name on the ballot paper just because he bought a round of drinks in the local pub the night before.

And in a parliamentary constituency with an average of 73,000 voters just how many John Smiths do you think there are?

If you don't have to be a member of some party - why do they want £150 to register the party you represent?

Aside from that -- I did say that it is too late to make such fundamental changes, but I stand by the assertion that real democracy and competitive politics are mutually exclusive.

Edit to say that I just saw your later reply

Is it correct to say that a person standing must reside in the constituency?

As I said if you are standing for no party, you can describe yourself as independent or leave the box empty, if you are standing for a party you need to submit a "Certificate of authorisation" from that party, therefore if you are creating your own party you will need to register that party (cost £150), more details here:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-party-registration Your party will need to be registered before you submit you nomination papers.

You do not need to live in the constituency, but those nominating you do, the nomination papers give an option for providing an address outside of the UK if you live abroad, but other conditions apply like being a British subject and certain jobs like civil servants, being in the armed force and serving police offices are excluded along with convicted criminals and bankrupts

Edited May 15, 2015 by Basil B

[MAJIC]

The worst possible outcome was the SNP Pulling Camerons strings,a fate worse than death!

[MAJIC]

The worst possible outcome was the SNP Pulling Camerons strings,a fate worse than death!

I would never voluntary vote for the Tories, but if I was forced to choose between SNP and Tory,it would be Tory,luckily,I have gone my whole life never having had to vote for the retrobate. Tory or SNP.

Edited May 15, 2015 by MAJIC

[Basil B]

While I deplore fox hunting, seems the SNP will vote against hunting with dogs in England and Wales yet they allow it in Scotland...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33520547

[RuamRudy]

While I deplore fox hunting, seems the SNP will vote against hunting with dogs in England and Wales yet they allow it in Scotland...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33520547

They are reviewing the legislation in Scotland with a view to bringing it in line with the current English legislation, so it would be seen as politically duplicitous to allow the law to be weakened in England while pushing to tighten it in Scotland.