Hexus OFFICIAL 2015 General Election results thread

[HalloweenJack]

The problem Labour faces with regards to the leadership is that most contenders are either inexperienced, or tarnished forever by the Blair – Brown years. Throw in to the mix that it is being understood that UNITE are willing to withdraw funding if a leader is elected that they deem to be too right wing, and you begin to understand that Labour are in a very difficult situation. From the periphery, it appears that they have been outflanked on the left by SNP in Scotland and on the right by UKIP in England. It's obviously far more complex than that, but that they are in a huge amount of trouble there is no doubt. They do have a couple of straws to clutch at, namely the EU referendum and the inevitable disruption both socially and economically that will bring, and the slim majority Cameron has, but I'm not sure electing the 'right' leader will make that much of a difference.

That said, I would like someone like Dan Jarvis. It would be very hard for the press, or the Tories, to go after him in the way they went after Miliband given his background. He also has quite a solid vision of where the party should go but would need to win over the Unions and is very inexperienced but, given what I said above, it might just be what they need. I think Labour are possibly looking at a 2 election strategy anyway, in which case now may well be the time to do it. Unfortunately, he has ruled himself out at the moment due to family pressures, but that might well change when it dawns on the party that they really are up the creek without a paddle.

Of the others being touted, I don't see anyone who can take on the Tories as it stands, certainly noone that that can do it without moving too far to the centre and alienating the Unions.

Ed Miliband was the unions first choice - and , well , that worked out well for them didn't it.

The country are sick and tired of the crap the unions oull - this is the 2010`s not the 1970`s - and a summer of strikes? you`ll see how fast the tories will put a stop to that. My son has asked who can he sue when the time comes to make sure HIS future isn't put in peril by a union strike at school.

[peterb]

Snip--->Don't get me started on the SNP's "defence" strategy. Heard Sturgeon say that they wouldn't Trident, and would prefer to spend on conventional forces. That idea I'm okay with - seems sensible that if you want submarine capability to spend it on one that are capable of more than one mission. On the other hand she then completely torpedoed that idea by saying that she'd take the money saved by not renewing Trident and spend it on the NHS, schools, etc. <---snip

At least she used a conventional weapon!

[peterb]

WEARING MY MODERATION HAT...

I have just deleted two posts, because they are simply petty squabbling, and more in keeping with a school playground than on HEXUS.

Saracen has already given one warning, this is another.

Keep the debate to the issues, not about the perceived intellectual capacity of the person taking part.

[ik9000]

WEARING MY MODERATION HAT...

I have just deleted two posts, because they are simply petty squabbling, and more in keeping with a school playground...

Keep the debate to the issues, not about the perceived intellectual capacity of the person taking part.

This made me chuckle - kind of ironic that some of the politicians could have done with the same advice before the election.

Also, I think Clinton would argue that commenting on the intellect of a competitor may at times be a valid debating tactic. After all, "it's the economy, stupid!"

[opel80uk]

Ed Miliband was the unions first choice - and , well , that worked out well for them didn't it.

The country are sick and tired of the crap the unions oull - this is the 2010`s not the 1970`s - and a summer of strikes? you`ll see how fast the tories will put a stop to that. My son has asked who can he sue when the time comes to make sure HIS future isn't put in peril by a union strike at school.

I doubt Ed Milliband was the Unions first choice - he was their first choice of those who were nominated, and that is a big difference.

The Tories have already started implementing changes to when and how strike action is allowed, but the idea that the Tories will 'put a stop to it' is both nonsense and self defeating. They can make it difficult, but what they are proposing (minimum turnout etc) won't be too much of a deterrent to the well organised Teaching Unions and secondly, The Tories will not want widespread industrial action when they've just won an election, and they don't really need to pick that fight either; considering the austerity there has been over the past 5 years, the Tories have actually done well to keep the peace between them and the Unions. The pubic do get sick of the Union strikes, but they can't do anything about the Unions – they can do something about the Government.

Presumably, though I'm not qualified in law, he would need to sue the Government. Although if he really feels that his future is in PERIL (serious and immediate danger) as a result of the relatively small number of days lost to teaching strikes, he might need to hit those books a bit harder.

[kalniel]

Someone mentioned earlier about the drawing of phalluses on ballot papers.. not sure if the story of unusual numbers is apocryphal, but in at least one case it actually happened and was counted as a vote towards the candidate they were presumably upset with:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32693485

[opel80uk]

Good points. And you may be right.

A couple of things, though. Unions can't assume that just because people are members, they'd vote for a Union party. Or for that matter, currently even vote Labour.

Also, I'm not so sure about the 2020 result. My bet is that LOT depends on the next 5 years. Partly, the UKIP effect. You said it yourself, 4 million (nearly) votes. Their one MP is a misrepresentation of how well they did, and yeah, in terms of seat/vote ratios it's scandalous, but the same's been true though perhaps not quite so spectacularly, for LibDems for decades. More interestingly is, IIRC, 160-ish second places, and 200+ third places. It's a heck of a step up from 2010 and a pretty solid launch platform for next time. Question is ... trajectory. Was that the apex, and now they fizzle? Or was it the start of a snowball rolling downhill, gathering pace? And, if Cameron gives us the much-promised referendum, where does that leave UKIP? If we vote out, and leave, UKIP's central objecyives (exit, and control over immigration) have been achieved, so .... what are they for? If we vote 'stay in' then their central objecyivds have been rejected, so what are they for? Why do we need them?

And .... where do those 4 million votes go? Stay with a refocused UKIP, or .... what?

But I think the single biggest 2020 factor will be the economy. All the economic indicators, well, almost all, have been good for a year or 18 months, but are most people feeling it in their incomes? And can the Tories come through on deficit elimination promises whilst still upping NHS funding, and without drastic and unfair welfare cuts? If they can get into surplus, and people are feeling better off, I think they'll walk it.

Their central promise this time was, effectively, they've been competent economically, they're sorted out the ghastly mess the other lot left, but the job's only half done, and the people will start to feel the benefits soon. In fact, evidence suggests people are just starting to feel tbe benefits, but just barely.

They've done enough, if barely, to be given a chance to demonstrate that 'austerity' not only worked, but was worth it, and is OVER, by 2020.

If they pull it off, I suspect they'll walk it. If in 5 years, we're needing yet more austerity, they're toast. That is, they need to poop, or get off the potty. Are they all mouth and no trousers?

The Unions, if they had any sense, would appreciate that not all members would vote for them – that doesn't even happen now and I know of people in my former Union Unison who are lifelong Tory voters. But what they know they do have is a sizeable number that will go with them, and a decent base to start with. Like I said, it's not what I'd like to see happen but I certainly wouldn't rule it out, especially if Labour do not appear to have got their act together in the next couple of years.


I do agree about the Lib Dems and UKIP, but the difference between now and when the Lib Dems were under represented is that they were effectively the only other vote. Now you have the UKIP, The Greens, Lib Dems and even Labour if there were to be in any way a split with the left. If you were to have all of those campaign for some form of PR (not PR lite like AV), it would be hard to argue for a FPTP system that was designed for a 2 major party system. Throw in that if there was to be any English Assembly, it would almost certainly follow the Scotland model of PR, and then you have the appearances of the UK hanging on to an archaic system for the sole purposes favouring 1 party, which actually only had 25% odd of the electorate vote in this election. That's not sour grapes, because Labour sure have benefitted from that in the past, but when the was a duopoly, Labour were happy to keep quiet. You can be sure if they feel it in their best interests, they will just as quick start saying so.


I agree with much of what you said about about the Economy, but part of the problem with this campaign is that Labour didn't give people not stuck rigid to any party in particular anything to vote for. I spoke with a lot of my friends after the election, who would by and large be Labour leaning. A lot still voted Labour, just, but a not inconsiderable number voted Tory. When I asked why, their answers were telling – they didn't know what Labour stood for or what a vote for them actually meant. They were upset about the welfare cuts made over the last 5 years, but felt that these would be exacerbated with Labour in charge because they believed there was a bigger chance of the Economy stalling. They all, bar none and including those who ended up voting Labour, wanted a vote on the EU and a couple said that this was the deciding factor in why they voted blue, and were willing to accept the economic uncertainty that the referendum and potential no vote would bring. As far as I can see, Labour allowed the Tories to pin the blame for the economic crash on them, and with no small help from the media, it stuck. That the Tories promised to match, almost to the pound, Labours spending plans right up till 2008, and said that the deregulation of the banks didn't go far enough, was just a footnote. Why? Because Labour couldn't decide on it's overall message and whatever small message it did decide on was seemingly lost in a cacophony of soundbites. As much as I like to comfort myself in the old saying 'the people have spoken, the B*******', they cannot be ignored. There is also the uncomfortable notion that just maybe conservatism, simply by it's nature, is able to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters than left leaning parties. First glance at Scotland would say that can't be right, but when you look deeper and see that the SNP do benefit from the relatively generous Barnett formula, it's not hard to imagine that their position may well change when they are in complete fiscal control, and don't have Westminster to blame as the bogey man and have to make difficult decisions. I am invariably always finacially worse off with socialist Governments in charge and unless the case for the benefits are made for having that type of Government, and in a way that people can buy into, people en masse are not going vote for it. Even if the Tories do not succeed with their economic plan, I really do think that Labour are in big big trouble.

[HalloweenJack]

I doubt Ed Milliband was the Unions first choice - he was their first choice of those who were nominated, and that is a big difference.

The Tories have already started implementing changes to when and how strike action is allowed, but the idea that the Tories will 'put a stop to it' is both nonsense and self defeating. They can make it difficult, but what they are proposing (minimum turnout etc) won't be too much of a deterrent to the well organised Teaching Unions and secondly, The Tories will not want widespread industrial action when they've just won an election, and they don't really need to pick that fight either; considering the austerity there has been over the past 5 years, the Tories have actually done well to keep the peace between them and the Unions. The pubic do get sick of the Union strikes, but they can't do anything about the Unions – they can do something about the Government.

Presumably, though I'm not qualified in law, he would need to sue the Government. Although if he really feels that his future is in PERIL (serious and immediate danger) as a result of the relatively small number of days lost to teaching strikes, he might need to hit those books a bit harder.

why the government? the UNIONS are the ones disrupting his education not the government....

[Saracen]

We are in for 'interesting times', I grant you that, opel. It'll be interesting to see how the union/Labour thing pans out.

I also have some life-long Labour friends that voted otherwise, including (to their utter astonishment, and somewhat, dismay) Tory. They couldn't quite believe it. I can, though. Neither Labour nor Tories are the old ideologically clearly Left and Right parties they once were. That, I think, is partly where "Red" Ed went wrong.

It's not that the Tories were clear, certainly at a detail level, like where those cuts are going. But what IS clear is that the coalition said "we do austerity, we recover the economy, build up, etc" and Ed Ballsup predicted, for instance, huge increases in unemployment. When exactly the reverse happened, it badly damaged Ball's credibility, and Labour's with it.

And Labour never really acknowledged that. Instead, they tried to claim it was all part time, poorly paid jobs and move on to zero hours contracts. About which they have something of a point, though I spent years on a zero hours contract and live it, it suits me utterly. But it doesn't suit everybody, I ageee. But trying to wriggle out of having got employment predictions utterly wrong reinforced the idea of Tory competence, and Labour incompetence. Labour mishandled that. Badly.

On the EU referendum, I've thought for quite a while that one was coming, and was unavoidable.

This is, I dismiss the 'uncertainty' argument, and for one reason. Uncertainty is guaranteed if we have one, and if we don't. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no doubt that the current situation has no democratic legitimacy. The only way to get some, and to at least reduce the uncertainty from it's current background roar to a dull, barely audible muttering of the terminally malcontent is to have a referendum. Meantime, we get uncertainty either way. Until we have a referendum, the clarion call for one WILL go on, and with that, comes uncertainty.

I know it's not a popular view, but on this, Cameron is right. Whether we do anything or not, the EU is evolving, slowly but constantly. Even the status quo is not an option, because the EU is moving. And, being outside some key areas, like the Eurozone and Schengen, and now Police and Criminal Justice, we need to try to get a clear idea of where we stand in relation to that moving target, and vote on it. Hopefully, a full, frank, educated and informed discussion, then we choose ...are we in, with all the good and bad that implies, or out, with all the good and bad that implies.

And on PR, I think we agree. The current situation is untenable. What frosts my conkers is both Labour and Tory politicians saying we had a vote on electoral reform and rejected it. No, you idiots. We had a vote and rejected AV. That's akin to offering me sprouts (which I can't stand) with my Sunday roast, and concluding that because I said no, I not only don't want the roast, but have given up eating.

[opel80uk]

why the government? the UNIONS are the ones disrupting his education not the government....

Because the Government sets the parameters as to how education should be delivered, and included in those parameters is the right for Union to strike. How can a Union be sued for doing something they are legally entitled to? if that were the case, you'd have every commuter taking the RMT to court everytime there was a tube strike. And like I said, if your son genuinely feels those strikes are critically affecting his education, rather than using money to sue, he may be better off putting towards extra tuition. How many days has he lost to strikes over the last year, just out of interest?

[ik9000]

read this morning train drivers are about to strike. According to the Metro article they had above inflation rises for years when no-one else did, and now they're being told they can't have them anymore they feel hard done to. Given how much chaos we all endure getting in from south london and how many late mornings, missed meetings, stay-late-as-a-result evenings the government has my full support. I've had a number of trains cancelled due to "a temporary unavailability of staff" (an all too frequent occurrence) in recent weeks, and that is before any gripes about pay. If they can't sort things when they're on a cushy deal why should they get paid. The gov should also doc the profits though as it needs to hit the whole chain, not just the foot soldiers.

[opel80uk]

We are in for 'interesting times', I grant you that, opel. It'll be interesting to see how the union/Labour thing pans out.

I also have some life-long Labour friends that voted otherwise, inclyding (to their utter astonishment, and somewhat, dismay) Tory. They couldn't quite believe it. I can, though. Neither Labour nor Tories are the old ideologically clearly Left and Right parties they once were. That, I think, is partly where "Red" Ed went wrong.

It's not that the Tories were clear, certainly at a detail level, like where those cuts are going. But what IS clear is that the coalution said "we do austetity, we recover the economy, build up, etc" and Ed Ballsup predicted, for instance, huge increases in unemployment. When exactly the reverse happened, it badly damaged Ball's credibility, and Labour's with it.

And Labour never really acknowledged that. Instead, they tried to claim it was all part time, poorly paid jobs and move on to zero hours contracts. About which they have a point, though I spent years on a zero hours contract and live it, it suits me utterly. But it doesn't suit everybody, I ageee. But trying to wriggle out of having got employment predictions utterly wrong reinforced the idea of Tory competence, and Labour incompetence. Labour mishandled that. Badly.

On the EU referendum, I've thought for quite a while that one was coming, and was unavoidable.

This is, I dismiss the 'uncertainty' argument, and for one reason. Uncertainty is guaranteed if we have one, and if we don't. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no doubt that the current situation has no democratic legitimacy. The only way to get some, and to at least reduce the uncertainty from it's current background roar to a dull, barely audible muttering of the terminally malcontent is to have a referendum. Meantime, we get uncertainty either way. Until we have a referendum, the clarion call for one WILL go on, and with that, comes uncertainty.

I know it's not a popular view, but on this, Cameron is right. Whether we do anything or not, the EU is evolving, slowly but constantly. Even the status quo is not an option, because the EU is moving. And, veing outside some key areas, like the Eurozone and Schengen, and now Police and Criminal Justice, we need to try to get a clear idea of where we stand in relation to that moving target, and vote on it. Hopefully, a full, frank, educated and informed discussion, then we choose ...are we in, with all the good and bad that implies, or out, with all the good and bad that implies.

And on PR, I think we agree. The current situation is untenable. What frosts my conkers is both Labour and Tory politicians saying we had a vote on electoral reform and rejected it. No, you idiots. We had a vote and rejected AV. That's akin to offering me sprouts (which I can't stand) with my Sunday roast, and concluding that because I said no, I not only don't want the roast, but have given up eating.

I can't stand sprouts either - throw that in with agreeing on PR, and I'm starting to feel like waving a piece of paper in the air, Chamberlain style!

[Saracen]

I can't stand sprouts either - throw that in with agreeing on PR, and I'm starting to feel like waving a piece of paper in the air, Chamberlain style!

We do seem to be in severe danger of agreeing on something. Who'da thunk it?

[crossy]

Ed Miliband was the unions first choice - and , well , that worked out well for them didn't it.

Milliband was the union leaderships choice for some of the unions. Other union (leaders?) decided that Andy Burnham was more worthy of support. That's something that "amused" me about the Torygraph and the Murdoch "press" - apparently union members were "strong-armed" into supporting Ed. True, in as much as saying "We believe Ed is the best choice so please vote for him" could be regarded as "strong-arming".
And no, I voted against my unions wishes and supported the right honourable Mr Burnham.

The country are sick and tired of the crap the unions oull - this is the 2010`s not the 1970`s - and a summer of strikes? you`ll see how fast the tories will put a stop to that. My son has asked who can he sue when the time comes to make sure HIS future isn't put in peril by a union strike at school.

What you're saying is true - to an extent. There are unions out there that are doing strikes purely for their own political end - basically strutting like so many beach boy bullies. If you're even handed then I'll politely suggest that some of these strikes are being called to raise awareness of undesirable things that the government are doing.

And yes, you can pretty much place a solid bet on the current government seeking to stop "the right to strike", alas their restrictions will be all one-way - so we'll see strike prevention measures along with removal of various other protections for the workforce.

As to your sons comment. First off, tell him to suck it up and be a man - Thatch's education cuts effectively scuppered my intended future, but you don't hear me whining about wanting to sue her education secretary. Secondly, stop him watching those dumb US dramas (and I'll do the same to my kids), everything in life can't be corrected by engaging lawyers. Thirdly, suppose he goes for a job, and the only thing on offer are zero-hours contracts (which all the unions are trying to get scrapped), still feel warm and fuzzy about Cameron and co? Fourthly, he gets a job and does well in it, but then gets fired purely because the company want the subsidy that the government offers for school leavers and his has just finished (I have 2nd hand knowledge of this - a certain large book and music selling company is notorious locally for doing exactly that trick).

And I'll suggest it's not "the country are sick and tired of the crap the unions pull", but - in most cases - it's a narrow-minded self-interested section that feel that way. The rest see that, again in most cases, there's a genuine reason for the disruption. I remember the last time the NHS and firemen went on strike and in both cases there was widespread public support. I'll grant you that the "we didn't get this years payrise" strikes are annoying and not really supportable (yes, RMT I do mean you).

Please don't be mislead by the bottom-of-the-barrel Murdoch press that all unions are just seeking to feather their own nests and seek to cause the maximum disruption to the lives of the rest of the populace. In quite a few cases they're trying to protect the services we rely on.

[crossy]

read this morning train drivers are about to strike. According to the Metro article they had above inflation rises for years when no-one else did, and now they're being told they can't have them anymore they feel hard done to. Given how much chaos we all endure getting in from south london and how many late mornings, missed meetings, stay-late-as-a-result evenings the government has my full support. I've had a number of trains cancelled due to "a temporary unavailability of staff" (an all too frequent occurrence) in recent weeks, and that is before any gripes about pay. If they can't sort things when they're on a cushy deal why should they get paid. The gov should also doc the profits though as it needs to hit the whole chain, not just the foot soldiers.

Agree that the RMT's latest effort is just b stupid. But what "profits" are you wanting doc'd? Secondly the "temporary unavailability of staff" might just be down to the number of drivers etc being cut to the bone, so if Fred goes sick then there's no one to cover his shift.

I'm a union member (Unite) but we only get payrises when (and more usually if) the bosses decide to share a little bit of their profit. Quite a few of us have had pay cuts and have just had to grin and bear it. And don't get me started on the massive job cuts in my area (75%+ when the workload hasn't slackened any).

[ik9000]

Agree that the RMT's latest effort is just b stupid. But what "profits" are you wanting doc'd? Secondly the "temporary unavailability of staff" might just be down to the number of drivers etc being cut to the bone, so if Fred goes sick then there's no one to cover his shift.

I'm a union member (Unite) but we only get payrises when (and more usually if) the bosses decide to share a little bit of their profit. Quite a few of us have had pay cuts and have just had to grin and bear it. And don't get me started on the massive job cuts in my area (75%+ when the workload hasn't slackened any).

according to the employee cited in article the company is quote "making 1billion in profit". that may be exaggeration on that individual's part, but he was arguing it was unfair to crop pay when profits were high. if profits are high then they can afford to pay for overtime or a few more drivers as necessary. also it can't be as simple as due to sickness as the train arrived into Victoria it then didn't go anywhere and was towed to a siding. someone drove it to the station - a driver clearly was there. Instead of driving it to a siding why not drive it on its intended route? We all waited for 10 minutes on the train that got cancelled, and then stood for another 15 on a different platform after we were turfed off. Having stood in front of that locked train we were told it was not going to run either. What's the point in that?