British National Party vote share shows 2nd highest % increase, only Conservatives do better

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

#1 - Conservative vote share went up by 3.8%.

#2 - BNP vote share went up by 1.2%.

All other parties are lagging behind. Labor came in dead last, 6.2% less.

UK, say hello to the dawn of the right-wing.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

[Gemmie 142]

I don't think the UK is becoming right-wing. In technical terms, maybe, Conservatives might have gained more seats, but the meaning of it translates differently.

It means something completely different in the US than it does in the UK. I feel the policies of Conservatives are way more "conservative" in America, in fact I would say even your left-wing party is more "conservative" than all of ours.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Gemmie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The electoral system is screwed - the BBC just announced that the Conservatives got about 32% of the popular vote, Labour got 29% and the Lib Dems 23%. Yet somehow a 6% difference between Labour and the Lib Dems translates into 258 seats Vs. 57.

Something stinks.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The electoral system is screwed - the BBC just announced that the Conservatives got about 32% of the popular vote, Labour got 29% and the Lib Dems 23%. Yet somehow a 6% difference between Labour and the Lib Dems translates into 258 seats Vs. 57.

Something stinks.

Probably just how the votes are distributed.

[Peikko 1,575]

Probably just how the votes are distributed.

It's a first past the post system. Everything depends on how the constituency bounderies are drawn, and each time one of the two main parties gets into power, the first thing they do is redraw the bounderies. Naturally, the Lib/Dems' want to change the electoral system.

The problem is, the UK parliament is an adversarial not co-operatives system so changing the electoral system to something more on the lines of some kind of proportional representation would necessarily mean a change in how parliament does business and that's not very popular with the big 2 either.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Probably just how the votes are distributed.

The rule, rather than the exception, in democracies--otherwise it would stink even worse than what PB finds awry.

[Peikko 1,575]

Anyone who doesn't like conservatism can move north of the border, no conservatives there

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a first past the post system. Everything depends on how the constituency bounderies are drawn, and each time one of the two main parties gets into power, the first thing they do is redraw the bounderies. Naturally, the Lib/Dems' want to change the electoral system.

The problem is, the UK parliament is an adversarial not co-operatives system so changing the electoral system to something more on the lines of some kind of proportional representation would necessarily mean a change in how parliament does business and that's not very popular with the big 2 either.

I was hearing today that one of the constituencies was organised in such a way that Conservatives needed 26000 votes to win, but Labour only needed 19,000.

It's effed up.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Anyone who doesn't like conservatism can move north of the border, no conservatives there

WRONG! Conservative Party (originally named Reform, later Alliance--in all names, it has advocated fiscal-conservatism) is (minority) government there since 2006.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/156634-harper-gets-pyrrhic-victory

Edited May 7, 2010 by Saddle Bronc

[alienlovechild 75]

It's a first past the post system. Everything depends on how the constituency bounderies are drawn, and each time one of the two main parties gets into power, the first thing they do is redraw the bounderies. Naturally, the Lib/Dems' want to change the electoral system.

What I don't get about the British political system is that even though the Tories won a plurality of votes, PM Brown still gets first crack at forming a ruling coalition. Shouldn't the party that won the most MP seats get to form a coalition first?

[Pooky 3,847]

I was hearing today that one of the constituencies was organised in such a way that Conservatives needed 26000 votes to win, but Labour only needed 19,000.

It's effed up.

Apart from the fact that is an impossibility, as in a single constituency a candidate needs a majority of 1 to win the seat, not 7,000, it sounds rather like someone spreading misinformation to me.

Could the report have been on changing a constituency boundary? Or maybe even turnout related? If the turnout is high, the Labour candidate may have won the seat with 19,000 votes last time, but the Tory needed 26,000 to win it this time around.

Or maybe you need to get that earwax out of there

[Peikko 1,575]

What I don't get about the British political system is that even though the Tories won a plurality of votes, PM Brown still gets first crack at forming a ruling coalition. Shouldn't the party that won the most MP seats get to form a coalition first?

Apparantly it's the convention. This situation doesn't happen often, and no one knows who will actually be able to make enough deals to make this work. It is possible for a government to form with a simple majority, but it's not easy to actually make any decisions that stick if you do because every bill has to pass through the house with a majority and without the right number of bums on seats, it's just hot air. If no one can come up with a workable co-alition, there will be another election anyway, to see if the people can come up with the right answer next time.

[Peikko 1,575]

Apart from the fact that is an impossibility, as in a single constituency a candidate needs a majority of 1 to win the seat, not 7,000, it sounds rather like someone spreading misinformation to me.

Could the report have been on changing a constituency boundary? Or maybe even turnout related? If the turnout is high, the Labour candidate may have won the seat with 19,000 votes last time, but the Tory needed 26,000 to win it this time around.

Or maybe you need to get that earwax out of there

I wondered about that too - it's first past the post. I don't even know if a minimum number of electors have to participate - that would be an interesting question to find the answer to.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The electoral system is screwed - the BBC just announced that the Conservatives got about 32% of the popular vote, Labour got 29% and the Lib Dems 23%. Yet somehow a 6% difference between Labour and the Lib Dems translates into 258 seats Vs. 57.

Something stinks.

Go count some chads and lawyer up! AL.