UK General Election 2015

Have I got News For You been excellent tonight.

Prob iplayer that.

The media doesn't have the same power it did two decades ago, perhaps, but it still contains a colossal amount of pull not just from the angle taken but through it's agenda setting properties.

This was highlighted more than ever this election with all the deficit chat. Social media doesn't lead, it follows. Britain has always had a huge debt yet only this election did it warrant being the number one issue, all down to the medias dissemination of the facts and what constitutes importance.

Don't underestimate Murdoch's continued power in British politics. No one working in the political or media sphere would.

I think it was the right wing media in general rather than Murdoch himself. The Daily Mail, one of the biggest websites in the world, threw everything they had at burying Miliband.

Still think Noel Gallagher's "f**king communist" attack was the best

KKLEIN wrote:Have I got News For You been excellent tonight.

There would be something wrong if they couldn't put together a good show based on all the material that's come out over the past 24 hours!

Is there a "Extended" cut of the on sunday?

Monday at 10:45.

Has this already been posted?

Hexx wrote:Has this already been posted?

Not seen it but it backs up everything I've been saying.

How does the discrepancy come about? Difference in constituency populations (i.e, a constituency with a pop. of 100,000 versus five each with a pop. of 20,000)? So similar individual vote tallies could arise but result in five seats against one?

So UKIP/Greens/Lib Dems combined had about 25% of the vote for 1.5% of the seats

Igor it's because UKIP and others support is spread throughout the country so they get a little chunk everywhere as opposed to the big chunk in a focussed area like the SNP.

Igor wrote:How does the discrepancy come about? Difference in constituency populations (i.e, a constituency with a pop. of 100,000 versus five each with a pop. of 20,000)? So similar individual vote tallies could arise but result in five seats against one?

Can be part of that. But let's keep it very simple to show why the system is problematic. 2 areas with 10,000 each. 3 Parties A B and C

Area 1, 5000 vote for A, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for C
Area 2, 5000 vote for C, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for A

Results

A - 6000 votes - 1 seat
B - 8000 votes - no seats
C - 6000 votes - 1 seat.

Now lets do that with 2 areas - one with 100,000, 1 with 10,000

Area 1, 50.000 vote for A, 40.000 vote for B, 10.000 vote for C
Area 2, 5000 vote for C, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for A

Results

A - 51.000 votes - 1 seat
B - 44.000 votes - no seats
C - 11.000 votes - 1 seat.

KKLEIN wrote:I think it was the right wing media in general rather than Murdoch himself. The Daily Mail, one of the biggest websites in the world, threw everything they had at burying Miliband.

Yeah,, that too.

Was reading the paper edition last Saturday and a columnist claimed the breakdown of traditional marriage is a bigger threat than climate change.

ianf wrote:I hope a more progressive, logical Labour party emerges from this debacle. But it will be Chukka as the next leader and they will move back into the so-called center ground. Leaving everyone in Scotland behind as their career politicians once again take all the top roles. There's no coming back for them up here. Not for a long, long time.

Behind the rhetoric there is not much difference between Labour and SNP (other than the issue of independence, of course). The SNP talk up their progressive credentials but really, looking at their record and policies, they could easily be Labour's. For example, they want to lower business rates and other related taxes in Scotland; not exactly left wing. They are more centrist than you think. The IMF even came out saying such regarding their spending plans, which are far more conservative than the media hysteria would seem to suggest.

Also, Labour does not need to be more progressive. This is not a belief based on my personal preference, it's just cold hard reality based on the polls. This election was lost to them in marginals because they failed to win the centre ground. The only way Labour can ever win a majority or ever form a government is by winning the centre ground. Blair realised this and this is how he succeeded in making his party electable again.

I am a mutualist with some socialists friends but I'm not naive to think that the views of me and that small clique will ever neatly translate into political reality any more than those on the far right will. It's all very well having high ideals but the reality is that without appealing to the centre ground you will never have power in this country and without power you will never actually be able to help the people that my socialist friends claim to care so much about. The horrors faced by the poor and marginalised in this country are very real; but you won't be able to help them unless you are actually in government.

Anyone who looks at this mess and thinks Labour needs to lurch to the left is beyond hope. If they do that they are just handing the tories and their greedy donors the country on a platter for decades to come.

ianf wrote:

KKLEIN wrote:I think it was the right wing media in general rather than Murdoch himself. The Daily Mail, one of the biggest websites in the world, threw everything they had at burying Miliband.

Yeah,, that too.

Was reading the paper edition last Saturday and a columnist claimed the breakdown of traditional marriage is a bigger threat than climate change.

Agreed about the right wing media of which we seem to have a disportionate amount in this country. The daily mail website has been horrendous over the past few months, the scaremongering has been off the scale. Trouble is that it's the most used media site in the country. I use it for sport and show biz news as its good for that.

You misunderstand the intent behind my posts. I agree with you that the SNP aren't really any more left leaning than Labour. Also that a lurch to the left would result in further disaster.

Yet neither of these factors matter in Scotland just now. That is the narrative and without a major policy shift - that would alienate the rest of the uk - and without getting charismatic, working class people to lead the party, Labour will not be resurgent. Unless FFA comes about and the SNP starts making monumental policy errors.

Hexx wrote:

Igor wrote:How does the discrepancy come about? Difference in constituency populations (i.e, a constituency with a pop. of 100,000 versus five each with a pop. of 20,000)? So similar individual vote tallies could arise but result in five seats against one?

Can be part of that. But let's keep it very simple to show why the system is problematic. 2 areas with 10,000 each. 3 Parties A B and C

Area 1, 5000 vote for A, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for C
Area 2, 5000 vote for C, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for A

Results

A - 6000 votes - 1 seat
B - 8000 votes - no seats
C - 6000 votes - 1 seat.

Now lets do that with 2 areas - one with 100,000, 1 with 10,000

Area 1, 50.000 vote for A, 40.000 vote for B, 10.000 vote for C
Area 2, 5000 vote for C, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for A

Results

A - 51.000 votes - 1 seat
B - 44.000 votes - no seats
C - 11.000 votes - 1 seat.

Interesting, thanks for the explanation. If an alternative is the division of seats among parties based on their share of the overall vote (I'm assuming that's what PR means?), how would it be decided which individuals that stood for election end up as MPs? If Labour have 200 candidates standing and end up with 50% of the vote spread across the entire country - which 100 candidates get the job?

ianf wrote:You misunderstand the intent behind my posts. I agree with you that the SNP aren't really any more left leaning than Labour. Also that a lurch to the left would result in further disaster.

Yet neither of these factors matter in Scotland just now. That is the narrative and without a major policy shift - that would alienate the rest of the uk - and without getting charismatic, working class people to lead the party, Labour will not be resurgent. Unless FFA comes about and the SNP starts making monumental policy errors.

Sorry, I was mostly just unloading some thoughts I had been having.

Anyway, I agree in that I think Labour have to avoid any idea that they can win back Scotland the easy way. They had gotten so reliant on that block of support north of the border to shore them up that they thought they could just parachute in anyone they wanted and walk to victory. I suspect in this election a lot of the Scottish Labour party found themselves knocking on doors for the first time in their lives. Too late.

Igor wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Igor wrote:How does the discrepancy come about? Difference in constituency populations (i.e, a constituency with a pop. of 100,000 versus five each with a pop. of 20,000)? So similar individual vote tallies could arise but result in five seats against one?

Can be part of that. But let's keep it very simple to show why the system is problematic. 2 areas with 10,000 each. 3 Parties A B and C

Area 1, 5000 vote for A, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for C
Area 2, 5000 vote for C, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for A

Results

A - 6000 votes - 1 seat
B - 8000 votes - no seats
C - 6000 votes - 1 seat.

Now lets do that with 2 areas - one with 100,000, 1 with 10,000

Area 1, 50.000 vote for A, 40.000 vote for B, 10.000 vote for C
Area 2, 5000 vote for C, 4000 vote for B, 1000 vote for A

Results

A - 51.000 votes - 1 seat
B - 44.000 votes - no seats
C - 11.000 votes - 1 seat.

Interesting, thanks for the explanation. If an alternative is the division of seats among parties based on their share of the overall vote (I'm assuming that's what PR means?), how would it be decided which individuals that stood for election end up as MPs? If Labour have 200 candidates standing and end up with 50% of the vote spread across the entire country - which 100 candidates get the job?

This is the problem. If we insist on having local MPs who 'represent' an area then the end result will never truly represent the overall results.

For me the whole system is wrong though. It is set up that you are supposed to vote for your local mp and what they stand for and what they will do locally but the majority of people vote based on their perception of the leaders of the party. None of it makes sense. Most couldn't even tell you the name of the mp they actually voted for when the ticked the Tory, labour etc box

There's some protest outside Tory HQ tomorrow, basically all the "revolutionaries" are talking about it on Twitter