Hexus OFFICIAL 2015 General Election results thread

[Biscuit]

I wonder if we will see David Miliband return to UK politics? He isn't eligible to stand in the leadership election as he is not a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party, but he could return in the event of a by-election or at the next general election.

He should have been the leader from the beginning of this generation of Labour IMO, but seeing as he wasn't I think they need to move on and find someone fresh with an actual backbone. Going back to David would be a demonstration of weakness, lack of creativity and ambition within the party.

[Noxvayl]

Who are 'they'? Personally I'd rather know what the controls are and under what conditions communications can be intercepted. But to give unrestricted and uncontrolled communications to those who would destroy democracy is as ludicrous as selling weapons to anyone without control or asking any questions.

The Internet (and othe communications media) is used by those pursuing unlawful activities. Should that be permitted without giving law enforcement authorities controlled powers to monitor them?

And as we have seen, politicians and civil servants are not above the law, they are not immune from prosecution when they break the law.

I wasn't around when phones first came into existence but I am unaware of the same logic being applied to them. We don't have restrictions on the use of roads other than being able to follow simple rules to help prevent accidents. There is also no restriction on gathering together to discuss ideas and plan action as far as I know. How is it different to have unrestricted access to the means of travel and communication outside of the internet?

I just don't get the insistence on treating the internet differently to other mediums that are used for unlawful activity. Laws are already in place to allow for the gathering of data on individuals suspected of criminal activity without the need to create a system to mine data from any and all use of the internet.

I have yet to hear of any data gathering practices, that have been revealed to us thanks to Edward Snowden, that are actually successful. There are claims that they are, but as far as we can tell their is no evidence to support that. The documents released indicate that the practices are supplementary rather than critical to the process of identifying and catching targets, which indicates that there is no need for wholesale gathering of data.

But my pronouncement on UKIP is down to a simple proportional assignment of seats to parties, assuming that we're not voting on individual seats (a situation which will *never* produce a proportional result, regardless of the voting system used). The house would be fairly evenly balanced between left and right wing parties, but UKIP would be a really significant voting block on the right wing. As an aside, despite getting a kicking in the polls the same calculations would give the Lib Dems almost as many seats as they started with from the previous parliament. Although the party split would be very different, ideologically the house wouldn't look that different....

STV, as described in this video, doesn't vote on individual seats. You vote on a collection of seats for the area you are in, so you get a number of candidates from a single area but the parties they come from and their ideals reflect the voting population proportionally. There is only one way to vote on individual seats and that is FPTP so I am a bit confused by your parenthetic statement.

As for the ideological mix of parliament, I would think that without tactical voting and proportional representation we would see more of a lean towards the left than what is currently displayed in parliament. There would also be more of a spread, less clustering around the centre as it currently is. I would imagine that policies that get passed would still favour a central tendency due to the requirement of co-operation, so from that perspective things might not change much.

I tend not to agree that we'd get the same quantity of votes for a party like UKIP under other voting systems. I also think that parties like UKIP would be less extreme under other systems and thus less dangerous.

[outwar6010]

[peterb]

I wasn't around when phones first came into existence but I am unaware of the same logic being applied to them. We don't have restrictions on the use of roads other than being able to follow simple rules to help prevent accidents. There is also no restriction on gathering together to discuss ideas and plan action as far as I know. How is it different to have unrestricted access to the means of travel and communication outside of the internet?

I just don't get the insistence on treating the internet differently to other mediums that are used for unlawful activity. Laws are already in place to allow for the gathering of data on individuals suspected of criminal activity without the need to create a system to mine data from any and all use of the internet.

I have yet to hear of any data gathering practices, that have been revealed to us thanks to Edward Snowden, that are actually successful. There are claims that they are, but as far as we can tell their is no evidence to support that. The documents released indicate that the practices are supplementary rather than critical to the process of identifying and catching targets, which indicates that there is no need for wholesale gathering of data.

You only have access to roads after passing a test, and if you use a vehicle for some unlawful activity, it can be impounded and confiscated. And the roads are policed - ask anyone who has a motoring conviction!

Telephone communication can be intercepted and if done with a warrant from the home office, the evidence is admissible in court proceedings. However, just there fact that internet (or other) communications may be monitored might be a deterrence to their unlawful use. The internet is not and should not be a special case.

And you are right, mechanisms do exist for monitoting, and anything that regulates and regularises how that data is used is to be welcomed in the interests of transparency. But the idea of a nameless/faceless "they" is somewhat ridiculous, and is a slur on the civil servants and other people in the law enforcement agencies that are there to protect individuals. In fact Id go as far as to say that if Governments turned a blind eye to the unlawful use of any communication cjhannel or the unlawful use of any facility or activity, they are being grossly negligent.

[kalniel]

I wonder if we will see David Miliband return to UK politics? He isn't eligible to stand in the leadership election as he is not a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party, but he could return in the event of a by-election or at the next general election.

I fear it will be death by Harriet Harman. But maybe there will be A New Hope.

[Knoxville]

Unfortunately due to the hallowed rules I am here to enforce I cannot post in full my actual reaction to this mornings election result. Although if you live less than eleven miles from my home you may have heard the echo.

As such all names, aliases, locations, inappropriate language and insinuations of bizarre and unholy congress have been omitted. Here is the redacted version -

Just what in the ███████ ████ of ██████ ████████'█ ghost is going on around here? Who in their right mind voted for that ████ ████, lying, austerity driven, warmongering ██████ The Tank Engine looking ████████████? Who counted the votes for ███████? How did ███████ not █████ on ██████ ████ during the ███████ he gave the ████ ████ last night to secure this unholy accord? These are questions I need answered! Pass me my good frowning eyebrows young 'un, I'll be needing them for the rest of the day!!

[peterb]

I fear it will be death by Harriet Harman. But maybe there will be A New Hope.

Well the old hopeless have pretty much gone!

[ik9000]

I fear it will be death by Harriet Harman. But maybe there will be A New Hope.

does that mean she will get her hair in a Princess Leia double cinammon bun?

[Noxvayl]

You only have access to roads after passing a test, and if you use a vehicle for some unlawful activity, it can be impounded and confiscated. And the roads are policed - ask anyone who has a motoring conviction!

Telephone communication can be intercepted and if done with a warrant from the home office, the evidence is admissible in court proceedings. However, just there fact that internet (or other) communications may be monitored might be a deterrence to their unlawful use. The internet is not and should not be a special case.

And you are right, mechanisms do exist for monitoting, and anything that regulates and regularises how that data is used is to be welcomed in the interests of transparency. But the idea of a nameless/faceless "they" is somewhat ridiculous, and is a slur on the civil servants and other people in the law enforcement agencies that are there to protect individuals. In fact Id go as far as to say that if Governments turned a blind eye to the unlawful use of any communication cjhannel or the unlawful use of any facility or activity, they are being grossly negligent.

I don't think anyone is calling for the government to turn a blind eye. That is considerably off the mark... Policing the internet should be done in a similar manner to policing the streets, that is the simple basis for my objection to data mining.

As for the policing of the roads, there is targeted monitoring of areas of high danger. There isn't systematic coverage of ALL the roads at ALL times to make sure nothing untoward is happening. That is the key point here. The snoopers charter is akin to having cameras track your movement from when you leave your house to your destination and anywhere else you go just incase you do something unlawful. This isn't being done in the real world and there is no indication that authorities want to do it either. Yet we get onto the internet and it is treated as a special case where we should not be allowed any freedom because of the danger of that freedom leading to some unlawful activity.

I don't know why these types of overreaching practices are being proposed, and not just by us but by almost all governments. I can't understand why people would support them either. I can only imagine these ideas are able to be entertained more easily on the internet than in real life because the internet is a foreign concept to most people and thus the same modes of thought that we apply to real life seem less likely to be applied to the internet. Maybe it is because the feasibility of doing it on the internet is easier and thus makes it a more encouraging idea to pursue than in real life. Whatever the reason is for these policies the objection to them is the same on the internet as it is in real life. It is an extension of authority beyond what is required.

[Noxvayl]

For those that are unhappy with the election result, or even just fed up with the system we are in, here is something to sign: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uk_elect...ypes=og.shares

Keyboard warriors for the win

[HalloweenJack]

the only thing to change now will be the boundries to keep labour out - and maybe an answer to the west Lothian question , since the tories have a majority and care little for Scotland.

[Hicks12]

Meh strong dislike for tories.

Even worse is their cheap marketing tactics appear to have worked , right to buy clearly did something lol!

I dont agree with the voting mechanism, here in Plymouth its always been strong for tories but thats because there are a signficant amount of wealthy people here so of course its never going to change.. why should my vote be worthless because there are more rich people that live here and prefer a government that focuses on them.

Also what was so wrong with UKIP? I personally would have loved to create a manifesto taking points from all parties but the UKIP one to me seemed more agreeable to me than the rest, I like the immigration change it should be like the Australian points system because England has limited space so filling useful roles would reduce serious problems in employment and strain on the NHS by requiring private health.

I strongly dislike politics, they all seem to be poop and deliver terribly on their promises.

Would eat my hat if all of them decided to take a pay cut and join us in the bad times...
(done with politics for another 4 years woo)

[peterb]

Meh strong dislike for tories.

Even worse is their cheap marketing tactics appear to have worked , right to buy clearly did something lol!

I dont agree with the voting mechanism, here in Plymouth its always been strong for tories but thats because there are a signficant amount of wealthy people here so of course its never going to change.. why should my vote be worthless because there are more rich people that live here and prefer a government that focuses on them.

Also what was so wrong with UKIP? I personally would have loved to create a manifesto taking points from all parties but the UKIP one to me seemed more agreeable to me than the rest, I like the immigration change it should be like the Australian points system because England has limited space so filling useful roles would reduce serious problems in employment and strain on the NHS by requiring private health.

I strongly dislike politics, they all seem to be poop and deliver terribly on their promises.

Would eat my hat if all of them decided to take a pay cut and join us in the bad times...
(done with politics for another 4 years woo)

I suspect the SNP had quite a bit to do with it. The thought of a Labour Government proposed up by an SNP bent on a single agenda and effectively holding the other three countries to ransom was too much.

Politics is about pragmatism and compromise though. It's unrealistic to expect any Government to carry out everything it wants to for various reasons.

I actually do think that the majority of polititions to go into politics for good motives, although for some, power does seem to corrupt. I was struck by David Cameron's generous praise for both Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. There political beliefs might be different, but, in spite of the PM question time knockabout, there was genuine respect for them.

The other thing to remember is that Governments do not create wealth, although they may create the conditions for wealth to be generated. But essentially they only spend, and they have only two sources of income, taxation and borrowing, and borrowing is only deferred taxation. It was excessive borrowing that contributed to the economic crisis, compounded by the unregulated banking sector. So further borrowing is just holding future generations (like yours) to ransom as that debt has to be repaid. Austerity might not be good, but there are signs of an improved economy, and that improvement will generate wealth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.

[Andy3536]

Meh strong dislike for tories.

Even worse is their cheap marketing tactics appear to have worked , right to buy clearly did something lol!

I dont agree with the voting mechanism, here in Plymouth its always been strong for tories but thats because there are a signficant amount of wealthy people here so of course its never going to change.. why should my vote be worthless because there are more rich people that live here and prefer a government that focuses on them.

Also what was so wrong with UKIP? I personally would have loved to create a manifesto taking points from all parties but the UKIP one to me seemed more agreeable to me than the rest, I like the immigration change it should be like the Australian points system because England has limited space so filling useful roles would reduce serious problems in employment and strain on the NHS by requiring private health.

I strongly dislike politics, they all seem to be poop and deliver terribly on their promises.

Would eat my hat if all of them decided to take a pay cut and join us in the bad times...
(done with politics for another 4 years woo)

I do agree that the the voting system is a bit off, any way you look at it the SNP getting all those seats with less votes that UKIP who only got 1 isn't right.
That being said, if your vote is for a minority party, that then don't get in in your area. Sometimes you just have to accept that you've gotta go with the majority.
Any form of PR vote lead to minority partys pushing policies few people want. And i'm not sure that's good either. I'm not convinced that PR voting will be anyway better that FPTP.
If there's one thing for sure, it's that the conservatives got a majority. Like it or not, they have a mandate to run the next government.

[watercooled]

I don't think anyone is calling for the government to turn a blind eye. That is considerably off the mark... Policing the internet should be done in a similar manner to policing the streets, that is the simple basis for my objection to data mining.

As for the policing of the roads, there is targeted monitoring of areas of high danger. There isn't systematic coverage of ALL the roads at ALL times to make sure nothing untoward is happening. That is the key point here. The snoopers charter is akin to having cameras track your movement from when you leave your house to your destination and anywhere else you go just incase you do something unlawful. This isn't being done in the real world and there is no indication that authorities want to do it either. Yet we get onto the internet and it is treated as a special case where we should not be allowed any freedom because of the danger of that freedom leading to some unlawful activity.

I don't know why these types of overreaching practices are being proposed, and not just by us but by almost all governments. I can't understand why people would support them either. I can only imagine these ideas are able to be entertained more easily on the internet than in real life because the internet is a foreign concept to most people and thus the same modes of thought that we apply to real life seem less likely to be applied to the internet. Maybe it is because the feasibility of doing it on the internet is easier and thus makes it a more encouraging idea to pursue than in real life. Whatever the reason is for these policies the objection to them is the same on the internet as it is in real life. It is an extension of authority beyond what is required.

Completely in agreement with Noxvayl here.

Comparing the Internet to other systems is completely apples-to-oranges. This has been discussed before many time by people who actually have a basic understanding of how technology works rather than politicians spouting their 'thinka tha children' nonsense (in an attempt to embarrass people into turning a blind eye) and asking for impossible solutions. It's analogous to someone who completely fails to understand economics angrily demanding more money to be printed for everyone to solve all economic problems. Sorry, just doesn't work that way, and no amount of shouting about it or debating the politics of it is going to change that.

Over-unity electrical generators would be pretty useful too. We wouldn't need none of them stinkin' fossil fuels or unsightly wind turbines!

As I've said before, before the argument even gets to politics it utterly falls apart at the technical level. Key escrow doesn't work, and there's no good evidence of efficacy of dragnets.

[Saracen]

Shame on you Saracen not posting in rank order! /OCD

Sorry. You're quite right. I'll edit it .... and move UKIP up.

I used the order listed by the BBC, IIRC.