FPTP

Rasczak

Despite the hearlds claiming this election changed "everything" and we were now in a "multi-party" system, the net result of this election is that the First Past the Post system has given us a majority Government. Putting Scotland aside, you can also argue that the two party system is re-establishing itself:

1. The Lib Dems are effectively destroyed and may not recover their former support in our lifetime. (I wonder if they might even need to consider merging with Labour)

2. UKIP have failed in all their objectives bar Clackton and, whilst second in some northern areas, will be competing against an inevitably resurgent Labour Party.

Notwithstanding the limitations on the minor parties though, FPTP has still ensured they have some representation. Bottomline then it seems that FPTP is actually serving us well. The rush to cite 2010 as the "new norm" was misplaced IMHO.

hdsport

FPTP is as indefensible as it ever has been we've got a majority government based on nothing close to a majority of the vote.

Whilst I'm delighted that it kept UKIP out they have been hard done by as have other parties both now and in the past.

nabby

FPTP is unfit for purpose imo. Only with electoral reform will we get more people engaged in politics.

Additionally, Politics and Civics should be a compulsory subject at school from 8 years old to 18, to get young people interested in how Government works.

As for the Lib-Dems, they'll bounce back. They've started low down before.

EarthRod

How can we put Scotland aside and say the two party system is re-establishing itself?

Why not say put Labour aside in addition and have a one party system. Or put Conservatives aside as well and have a zero-party system?

Bloody nonsense.

Sonic67

Bottomline is FPTP has never been so unrepresentative. Expect yet more calls for PR as a result of last night.

Edit: Another anomaly of FPTP. The huge difference in constituencies. The Isle of Wight has one MP, yet its electorate of 100,000 is more than 50% larger than the second largest (West Ham at about 72,000), and is about 5 times the size of the smallest.

In addition there are 20 constituencies in Scotland and Wales which are smaller than the smallest England constituency.

Again it means your vote in some areas carries far more weight than in others.

Enki

Its not indefensible, Cameron and Conservatives never talked changing FPTP, why would they.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-parliament-proportional-representation/20893

The Conservatives and SNP, they say "NO" to change, is my guess.

hdsport

Not talking about changing FPTP does mean the system itself is defensible. As for the SNP I thought they were in favour...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-snp-would-vote-to-introduce-proportional-representation-at-westminster-nicola-sturgeon-confirms-10223302.html

...however even if they have changed their mind it just shows that electoral reform is always stopped by narrow self interest.

Enki

More popcorn please, 5years is a long time with this slim majority, I'm coming over all Donald Trump...  SNP wont change their minds, they wont need too.

Sonic67

So in this election 56 seats went to a party with 4.8% of the national vote, 8 seats to a party with 7.8% of the national vote and one seat to a party with 12.6% of the national vote. Or if you like the wishes of 3.8 million people represented by one MP.

Rasczak

Scotland is moving in a very different direction now and I suspect the schism could be beyond repair. But the question is moot; either the main two national parties will successfully re-assert themselves in Scotland or else the country will eventually become independent.

So looking at rUK then, the reality is - despite the bluster - FPTP has delivered us a majority Government capable of functional and effective operation. All forms of PR would have led to a hung Parliament and messy coalition.

To those who bemoan UKIP's limited representation in the chamber - I would humbly suggest perhaps a more targeted campaign, coupled with a slightly more mature and inclusive approach, would have served them better. They reaped what they sowed. But it was not the voting system that 'saw them off' - it was the British public in each and every area other than Clackton.