UK General Election 2015

[Minischoles]

So predictably enough, the SNP sweep Scotland - including unseating the Labour leader in Scotland - and the Lib Dems have been utterly destroyed.

They've managed to retain 6 seats so far but have lost 39 of them, including Vince Cable and Danny Alexander both losing their seats - even Clegg barely retained his seat despite it being the safest Lib Dem seat in the country.

[Purple]

Ain't the SNP the secessionist party?

[Bedlam]

Ain't the SNP the secessionist party?

Yes they are, the referendum to disband the union last year went against then by about 5% although they keep acting like they actually won and the actual result was 'wrong'

[Titan Uranus]

So, it's a bit early, but when you factor in the conservative Irish party, it looks like the conservatives are going to win a majority.

The Lib-Dems seem to have been eaten alive by Labour on the left and the Tories on the right, while the SNP gutted one of Labour's most reliable strongholds in Scotland. But Labour would have lost with or without the SNP. I'm an American, so I really don't know, but when I saw a few recordings of PM's questions I thought that Cameron kicked the shit out of Milliband almost every time. I have no idea how a major party in a nation as large as the UK chose him as their figurehead, he has all the charisma and zeal of Old Yeller.

Also, apparently UKIP got to be the second party in 90 seats, so much for the Nazis losing steam, eh?

[K. A. Pital]

Go lady in pink, go you.

[DaveJB]

So, it's a bit early, but when you factor in the conservative Irish party, it looks like the conservatives are going to win a majority.

They're going to get a majority of about 4 even without the DUP getting involved. The trouble is that even with the DUP the Tories would only have a majority of 12 or so, which might actually make it harder for Cameron to govern than in the previous coalition.

On another note, Labour's popular vote performance is almost certainly going to be their worst since the 1983 election, when they suffered from the combination of Michael Foot's inept leadership, their "longest suicide note in history" manifesto, and vote-splitting from the SDP. So, yeah, quite the legacy that Ed's going to leave behind.

[Captain Seafort]

They're going to get a majority of about 4 even without the DUP getting involved. The trouble is that even with the DUP the Tories would only have a majority of 12 or so, which might actually make it harder for Cameron to govern than in the previous coalition.

On the other hand he won't have any problems with backbenchers complaining about undue Lib Dem influence, and Balls, probably the most consistently effective opponent the coalition has had over the last five years, will be off to the job centre on Monday morning.

[Iroscato]

*Sigh* At least they're not UKIP, I guess?

[DaveJB]

On the other hand he won't have any problems with backbenchers complaining about undue Lib Dem influence

Cameron's backbenchers are actually going to be his biggest problem now. The prior coalition had a big enough majority that it could pass whatever bill the leaders wanted, barring a major rebellion. Now, all it'd take to scupper a bill is the DUP refusing to support it unless the Tories send a big fat wad of cash Northern Ireland's way, and a half-dozen or so of their own backbenchers rebelling for whatever reason.

Granted, Cameron might just be this amazingly charismatic leader who can charm his whole party (and the DUP and Douglas Carswell just to keep the numbers safe) into passing whatever bill he wants, but that's not the impression I've ever had of him.

[Captain Seafort]

On the other hand he won't have any problems with backbenchers complaining about undue Lib Dem influence

Cameron's backbenchers are actually going to be his biggest problem now.

I'm not disagreeing with you - simply saying that at least there'll be one less whinge.

[mr friendly guy]

Can UK posters remind me, was it Cameron that said there will be a referendum to leave the EU if he wins the election (and it looks like he has).

[Captain Seafort]

Can UK posters remind me, was it Cameron that said there will be a referendum to leave the EU if he wins the election (and it looks like he has).

Yep. Renegotiation of the various treaties to shift powers back to national governments followed by a referendum for which he intended to campaign to stay in.

[Darth Tanner]

Yes he committed himself to a referendum in the next parliament while Labour and the Libs refused to allow a vote.

Farrage has failed to take his seat and he has previously promised to resign if he did - UKIP are likely to disintegrate without him although I can see him at least staying in politics for the referendum.

[LaCroix]

Farrage has failed to take his seat and he has previously promised to resign if he did - UKIP are likely to disintegrate without him although I can see him at least staying in politics for the referendum.

He hasn't taken up the Polish Gent's invidation to a duel with the weapons of his choice - saber or a discussion.

What makes you believe he is a man who'd honor the resignation promise ?

[Darth Tanner]

The fact that he has just resigned. You can say a lot about Farrage but that he is known for breaking promises isn't one.

At least until he returns to the leadership in a couple of years maybe...

[Captain Seafort]

The fact that he has just resigned. You can say a lot about Farrage but that he is known for breaking promises isn't one.

At least until he returns to the leadership in a couple of years maybe...

Or possibly September. He's effectively done exactly what Reckless and Carswell did last year.

[Vendetta]

Ain't the SNP the secessionist party?

Yes, but IABMCTT.

The SNP are the only major UK party which campaigned on a committed left wing anti-austerity platform. Labour's economic message was basically "we'll only kick you in one bollock, the tories are going to do both", when they should have been strongly refuting austerity at all (as literally all of the economic evidence is against it) and showing plans for job creation among poor people and the regions and tax reform at the low end (council tax reform, for instance, lowering VAT), even if that meant direct government spending on creating jobs. (because that's actually how to counter a recession, austerity has knocked about 5% off the GDP of the country compared to what a standard macro response would have produced over the last five years)

Because a significant proportion of UKIP's vote didn't come from natural tories, but from the people who have taken the worst brunt of the economic downturn, people out of work with benefits cut who made an easy target for the "taking our jerbs!" rhetoric no matter how it didn't apply to them.

Labour didn't engage those people, didn't even realise that they were there.

The SNP did, and so not all of their success is down to secessionist sentiment, a considerable part of their success and Labour's failure has been on their economic stance.

So, this was, essentially, all Labour's loss as much as it was anyone else's win.

[jwl]

Council results so far: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015 ... s/councils
Lib dems aren't doing as badly there, although they have lost quite a few seats. Labour are currently ahead. Big gains for Ukip.

[PainRack]

So, does this means more austerity or less for the UK?

[Darth Tanner]

Either more or the same depending on how effective at reducing austerity you believe the Lib Dems were. I'd say more as the Tories are committed to balancing the deficit and have ruled out most direct tax increases... although they ruled out a VAT rise last time and did it anyway.

[mr friendly guy]

So why did the Lib Dems take a pounding. Keep in mind I have very little knowledge of British politics, so I will take "The British politics for dummies" version.

[Tribble]

If the vote were proportional representation instead of first past the post, how much of a difference would that have made? I imagine it would have been quite substantial.

[Irbis]

If the vote were proportional representation instead of first past the post, how much of a difference would that have made? I imagine it would have been quite substantial.

Depends what proportional method exactly we were talking about. But yes, a lot, possibly with SNP and Labour having big majority without needing anyone else, barring any creative vote zones. Tories would lose the most, Labour too but these seats would be picked by their natural left wing partners while Tories have no one significant to partner with.

[Darth Nostril]

Well the Conservatards only got 37% of the vote, Labour got 31%. Under a PR system the Tory scum would not be forming a government right now.

[Hillary]

So why did the Lib Dems take a pounding. Keep in mind I have very little knowledge of British politics, so I will take "The British politics for dummies" version.

Because Clegg made a pledge to scrap tuition fees and they actually trebled. This was deemed to be the biggest crime since the Moors Murders by students, who made up a significant percentage of the Lib Dems' votes. And, generally, being the minor party in a coalition means you are obliged to support an awful lot more legislation you disagree with. We are a country not used to coalitions and I think many people struggled to square that circle. Finally, there was the issue that most Lib Dem voters are more left leaning than right, so were very unhappy the Lib Dems chose to get into bed with the Tories in the first place, rather than with Labour.