UK 2015 Election Cameron wins, what do you think?

Post Reply New Topic

You're obviously a keen analyst of British politics, the above and other comments you've made here are perceptive.

Yet there's an interesting, less than obvious angle to the EU referendum question. Until very recently, Cameron has rightly supported UK membership of the EU, albeit on re-negotiated terms. It was only under pressure from Europhobe members of his party and UKIP that he promised to hold a referendum, for fear of being ousted as leader or losing this election.

But midway through the election campaign he announced that he won't be standing for a third term (i.e.: in 2020) - which at the time seemed a puzzling decision. What this means is that, like Obama, he is now in his last term of office and doesn't have to worry about potential Tory rivals, UKIP (who only have 1 seat in parliament) or another election. He now also has a (slight) majority and the greater personal authority that goes with it. My guess is that he will try and negotiate a reasonable new deal for the UK in the EU, back continued EU membership in the referendum in 2017, and then stand down as Conservative leader in 2018 in order to allow his successor to settle in in time for the 2020 election.

Personally I find Cameron loathsome and dishonest, but he knows that if Britain votes to leave the EU then Scotland will push for, and get, independence. And he doesn't want to go down in history as the man who broke up the United Kingdom.

Of course, this is the only potentially positive thing I can find to say about today's election result. The next five years are going to wreck Britain even more.

We are living in a dictatorship. The Conservative government does not represent me and it does not represent 66% of the British people.

My vote didn't mean a thing in this election (or any election) because I live in a Conservative dominated seat where they get 50% of the vote without having to lift a finger. I can vote Labour, UKIP, Green or Lib Dem but it doesn't matter because the Tories win anyway.

We will never have a democracy until our voting system is reformed.

Just becuase he doesn't represent you doesn't mean we are living in a dictatorship. He doesn't really represent me either, if you only got someone you like it wouldn't be a democracy.



Reform doesn't happen becuase the public focuses on short-termism. If you want electoral reform, you need to insist on it for all of the parties, and make it an election issue. I'm a big support of political reform, Westminster PR, Lords Reform (I favour a lottery system), but people need to care enough first.

It mathematically true that you cannot model representation, nor can you know exactly want voter will is exact at any given second (nor would that information necessarily help you).

However it the fairest way of generating a result. You have to pick a system but no system is perfect.

Democracy is not just about voting. All the discourse and bust up are part of it. I has generates a turn over. The opposite is a dictatorship, that means there is not turnover.

Like in Russia, they have the illusion of pluralism, but is basically just United Russia. As election barely involve any policy debate at all, just a vague notion of stability and strength.

When people say "someone that represents me". I wonder if they are expect some kind of super human. You are me aren't the one's having to govern, there isn't a substitute to governance, and you are not going to please everyone all the time.

You also have a workable system. I favour PR, but you can't do away with constituency politics altogether.

You can't have a "national consciousness" PR, like a giant ouija board, with no politicians or seats. Terms like "direct democracy", sound good but in practice they are totally un-scable, expensive, infeasible to do on a continual basis, someone has to set the questions, and there wouldn't be time to implement the policies. It would be a dumb idea to run a country this way, if it were not impossible to implement anyway.

As much as I disagree with this electoral system, we do know who got the most votes. It would be nice to have more proportional system to get a balance, but massive Parliaments are also impediment to governance. So there has to be a set number of seats.

Well to be fair I've known plenty of people from the UK and plenty of people from EU proper.
I also have family members who regularly travel to Europe and step cousin who is a naturalized Dutch citizen married to a Dutch woman.

I also have BBC world news on as I post this.

Anyways Westminster promised an all in/out referendum on EU membership by 2017 at the latest.

Tories already planning on taking an axe to Scotland's budget and services....

It's only a matter of time before the Scotland leaves, unless England finally decides to make Scotland an equal partner as originally promised in the Acts of Union of 1707 when the UK was formed.

Don't worry the Tories will finally deliver the final blow to Scotland, they have to finish what Thatcher started with Scotland!

France just did their Le Patriot Act.

This type of legislation will spread throughout the G20...within the next 2-3 years I predict.

tbh I'm angered by the results yet not surprised.

That's just great! Another five years of bedroom tax, picking on the disabled, rich getting richer the poor getting poorer, benefits capped for those who cannot work or find work( as theirs little jobs going and people need to sign on or live on something if they're disabled), taxes going up, contract hrs, students cannot afford tuition fees still cut backs on care homes, facilities ect, more immigration which the country cannot financial cope with and theirs no spaces in schools, hospitals ect.That's what people are signed up for, which some of us didn't want.P.S funny how on these political chat shows, they were talking about the predictions and it looked as if Conservative were winning before it was announced, funny he was "pumped" before hand Cameron, almost looked as if he knew already.

This is why the district system is ridiculous, check these numbers. UKIP and Greens and LibDems got screwed badly, SNP did well just because all their voters live in the same place, but are outnumbered far by UKIP.


Party Percentage Vote Proportional Seats Actual Seats

Conservative 36.9 240 330
Labour 30.5 198 232
UKIP 12.6 82 1
Lib Dem 7.8 51 8
SNP 4.7 30 56
Greens 3.8 25 1


Oh crap, forum cropped the table together. Any way to post this so that it's readable?


Anyway, readable table here: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/35a6up/video_after_almost_1000000_votes_for_the_uk_green/

Cheers for the link
the snp have done very well.

as of ukip, they gained popularity and yet only got 1 actual seat
they got screwd

Not sure what you mean about making Scotland an equal partner with reference to the Act Of Union. A very logical way of equalizing the political status of the two 'nations' would be to set up an English Parliament with parallel powers to the Scottish one, but that would at the same time put us much further along the route to complete separation.

Not sure also why people continue to be surprised or shocked that the Tories 'plan to take an axe' to services. Conservative ideology in essence doesn't believe in state-funded or state-provided services. Scotland does a lot better than England in terms of state subsidies (eg free medical prescriptions, free university education) and that is not set to change under current arrangements.

Scotland was supposed to have equal say in how the UK was governed, which worked in the beginning before the current district system was put into place.

Under the current system, 532 MPs out of 650 come from England.
You literally just need to do well in England to get the out right majority.

England also has the majority in the House of Lords by far too.

Westminster caters to England, while ignoring Scotland.

If the UK had an upper house that was structured like the U.S. Senate, then things would be more fair.
Here in the U.S., the Senate gives each state 2 senators.
The U.S. Senate current operates under the super majority rule, which requires 60 votes to pass a bill and to call vote on a bill.
Any Senator has the power to filibuster (right to unlimited debate) until there are 60 votes to end the filibuster.
The Senate also has the power to block the lower house, the House of Representatives.
This let the South to keep slavery going for as long as it did.

The House of Representatives has 435 members distributed by population amongst the states.
California has the most seats at 53
Texas is second with 36 seats
Florida and New York are tied with 27 seats
Illinois and Pennsylvania are tied with 18 seats
Ohio has 16 seats
Michigan and Georgia have 14 seats.
The rest is distributed over the remaining states.

This structure prevents any state from dominating the federal government.
Though the East half of the country has more seats than the West.
North has more seats than the South...

Right now the union only benefits England at the expensive of Scotland.

^ Well the current population of Scotland is approximately 5.3 million, and of the UK as a whole 63.4 million.

This means Scotland contains about 8.4 percent of the UK population.

Scotland has 59 seats of the 650 seats in the House Of Commons, ie 9.1 percent.


That's apart from the fact that, unlike England, they have their own Parliament as well!

I can't imagine most English university students feel privileged to be taking on loans of £30,000 and occasionally more to fund their education, which would be free in Scotland.

I agree with Proportional Representation and some form of English parliament(s) but I would question how much bearing that population percentages alone should have on everything.

On a worldwide scale,it would mean we should all concede that China should be the dominant power because of their population.

There is also the question of geographical area - Scotland is 60% the size of England so the costs of distributing services per head of population are going to be higher.In some ways,Scotland also contributes a higher proportion to the economy .e.g. whisky accounts for more than 25% of the UK's food and drink exports.

I'm not a supporter of SNP so I want things to be fairer for everyone in the UK not forgetting Wales and Northern ireland and the likes of UKIP definitely merit more than 1 MP in England !

It is done on population, the town and have more constituencies than the rural areas. How many electoral collages does Wyoming have? (rhetorical)

You say do well in England. Actually Scotland used to be crucial for Labour.

The biggest pressure on Scotland's funding model is actually from Wales.

Regional governance should help address that. Devo max.



Not really to do with national politics.



This isn't really how logistics works, by area. The population should be an advantage in fact. The logistics of the islands and the western coast are harder. However the mainland isn't that different. I don't really follow your augment there. The cities not different either.



I would too. I wouldn't like super large Parliaments, and it is bit of a mess right now. We need some rational system, like states for day to day running, and a federal glue.

So did Canada...


Don't tell me...