• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Sorry, who won?

Pecker

Distinguished Member
EU elections:

CON 27.7%
UKIP 16.5%
LAB 15.7%
LD 13.7
GRN 8.6%
BNP 6.2%
SNP 2.1%
PC 0.8%
SSP 0.1%
OTH 8.4%

Labour got trounced. The tories 'won' with less than 28%, the Lib Dems were pushed into 4th...but held their vote, whilst UKIP and the BNP got a portion of the vote far bigger than they'll get in a general election, and one with won't return them an MP.

Is this the first election where everyone 'lost'?

Steve W
 

Solomon Grundy

Distinguished Member
Europe won...in all the confusion they are still able to do whatever they like!
 

NewMan

Prominent Member
Of course, for all the lip service Europe pays to "democracy", the results mean absolutely nothing as the EU parliament are nothing more than castrated puppies for the EU Commission to play with.

Edit: In what kind of democracy would you get a "no" vote and be told it's wrong, do it again?
 

Ed Selley

Hi-Fi Editor
EU elections:

CON 27.7%
UKIP 16.5%
LAB 15.7%
LD 13.7
GRN 8.6%
BNP 6.2%
SNP 2.1%
PC 0.8%
SSP 0.1%
OTH 8.4%

Labour got trounced. The tories 'won' with less than 28%, the Lib Dems were pushed into 4th...but held their vote, whilst UKIP and the BNP got a portion of the vote far bigger than they'll get in a general election, and one with won't return them an MP.

Is this the first election where everyone 'lost'?

Steve W

All the results can do is suggest trends. In the face of (slightly in the UK) lower numbers, the Tories and the Lib Dems broadly held their share of the vote. The growth in smaller parties was essentially achieved at the expense of the Labour party. When the assumption (I hesitate to use the word "fact") that more UKIP voters generally switch back to the Tories than Labour at a General Election is taken into account, I would suggest that if a General Election happened in the absence of a significant change, the Labour Party would be severely mauled.

Turnout was low- it generally is in European elections and increasingly so full stop. There are various reasons in the short and long term for this but I'm not convinced a knee jerk response is the way forward. I am not in favour of PR and never have been. It tends to lead to unweildy coalitions and (as we saw last night) parties I wouldn't want manning a toilet making it into power.

I would be in favour of reducing the number of UK MP's and introducing local primaries for their selection though- it would give people a sense of selecting someone they feel will do something and might encourage a higher turnout.
 

Pecker

Distinguished Member
Cheers chaps. My main point was this result in relation to the UK political scene.

Of the 3 'main' parties, we have Labour doing appallingly, the Lib Dems doing more or less what they normally do (not a lot), and the Conservatives 'winning' with a pitiful 28%. Meanwhile, none of the other smaller parties genuinely look like they're set to break out.

If I were a leader of any of the 3 main parties I’d be gloomy. Brown doesn’t look like he could win an egg and spoon race and the other two must wonder how they can only get 28% or 14% with this lot as unpopular as they are.

A right mess.

Steve W
 

loz

Distinguished Member
perhaps the local elections last week are a better reflection of how a General Election would go.

Conservatives 38%
Labour 23%
 

mij

Prominent Member
Europe won...in all the confusion they are still able to do whatever they like!

Spot on.

I even wondered if the timing of the MPs expenses scandals was a deliberate distraction from the Europe debate that did not really happen again.
 

Ed Selley

Hi-Fi Editor
Cheers chaps. My main point was this result in relation to the UK political scene.

Of the 3 'main' parties, we have Labour doing appallingly, the Lib Dems doing more or less what they normally do (not a lot), and the Conservatives 'winning' with a pitiful 28%. Meanwhile, none of the other smaller parties genuinely look like they're set to break out.

If I were a leader of any of the 3 main parties I’d be gloomy. Brown doesn’t look like he could win an egg and spoon race and the other two must wonder how they can only get 28% or 14% with this lot as unpopular as they are.

A right mess.

Steve W

As Loz points out, the European elections are not a great example for some good and bad reasons.

First is that there are far more parties potentially able to secure MEP seats and the vote is spread accordingly. UKIP get MEP seats but they don't get parliamentry seats. Likewise with the Greens and (hopefully) the BNP. This is not a bad thing. The two Green MEP's join a large block of pan european greens, UKIP join a sort of shouty Gaullist group and the BNP are hopefully placed in a creche somewhere. You can get "value" from an MEP from a small party in the way you can't really at a national level. The percentage of the vote going to the "mainstream" is correspondingly reduced.

Second is the profoundly sceptic/apathetic attitude of the public toward Europe- akin to ignoring it until it goes away. This is not going to lead to record turnout.

Third is that this business over expenses rumbles on. We are going to see depressed turnout for a while yet.

The council elections- whilst still dogged with a low overall turnout give more of a nod to what might actually happen at a General Election- they more accurately mimic the political spread you might see on the big day. The fact that Labour no longer control a single council would suggest that under the dynamic leadership of Gordon Brown, Labour might be pushed into third. I don't believe this actually translates into a massive win for the Conservatives though- the swings required are still larger than anything seen since '97.
 

Razor

Distinguished Member
43% turnout. :( :thumbsdow

Thats probably because they are all as bad as each other and no one wants to vote for any of them.

Its a bit like walking into a restaurant and their menu consists of:

Poo sandwich
Poo Soup
Roast Poo in gravy
Poo Pudding

None of the items on the menu appeal so no one eats there. IMO the same thing happens with elections.
 

dazza74

Distinguished Member
May sound mad but I think they might have more joy if they allowed internet voting etc. I didn't vote on Thursday because I was stuck at a market stall all day and in the evening at my Sister's Birthday party. Basically had no time to get to the polling station.

Isn't the problem really though with these low attendances that a huge percentage of the population have lost touch with reality and are immersed in this "heat" magazine culture.
 

NewMan

Prominent Member
Thats probably because they are all as bad as each other and no one wants to vote for any of them.

Its a bit like walking into a restaurant and their menu consists of:

Poo sandwich
Poo Soup
Roast Poo in gravy
Poo Pudding

None of the items on the menu appeal so no one eats there. IMO the same thing happens with elections.

I like this analogy.

People feel that because the restaurant is there, and it's the only one they've got, they have to order something. A lot of people will just stay away, so nobody in charge of the menu seems to realise that perhaps the menu (edit: or more importantly, certain aspects of the ingredients - i.e Gordon Brown.... I mean poo, poo) needs changing. If, however, there was a "none of the above" on the menu, turnout might be different if people feel they have a way to express disgust at the current choices without having to choose from one of them.
 
Last edited:

Pecker

Distinguished Member
As Loz points out, the European elections are not a great example for some good and bad reasons.

EU 1994 Lab 44%/Con 28%
UK 1997 Lab 43%/Con 31%

EU 1999 Con 36%/Lab 28%
UK 2001 Lab 41%/Con 32%

EU 2004 Con 27%/Lab 23%
UK 2005 Lab 41%/Con 32%

EU 2009 Con 27%/Lab 16%
UK 2010... ?

Well, it doesn't tell us that much, apart from that we know that sitting governments don't do too well mid-term.

However, when people had got completely to the end of the line with the tories in '94 they signalled a forthcoming Labour victory by giving them 44% - almost exactly what they got in the '97 general election. The same doesn't appear to be happening this time - Labour have received a bigger kicking than the tories got then, but the tories don't appear to have won anyone over in the way that Blair had with the New Labour project.

UKIP - where will their votes go? Probably not Lib Dem - as that protest was open to them now.

But if I were Clegg or Cameron I'd be asking why - with Labour as unpopular as you could imagine, with the cabinet imploding, with the worst recession since who knows when (apparently), and with the public blaming only one part for the expenses row (if you believe the opinion polls on the matter) - why are they not even breaking 30% (DC) or 20% (NC)?

Very strange.

Could it actually be that, disaffected as the voters are with Labour, they still can't bring themselves to vote tory again, and still believe that an LD vote is a wasted one?

To get a majority in a general election the tories need around 40% of the popular vote. If every single UKIP member went tory that'd only be 44%, and I'm not sure that's going to happen.

Steve W
 
Last edited:

Ed Selley

Hi-Fi Editor
OK- so we introduce a "none of the above" onto a ballot paper- what does it achieve? People who decry the choices they have rarely if ever actually have a cogent set of requests and ideas for what they do want. You'd essentially have a block of people who don't like what their options are but for wildly different reasons. Someone might vote because want a religious state, somebody else because they are relentlessly libertarian. They voted the same but they have no common ground over which to suggest a alternative and it isn't the job of a political party to cater to such disparate minorities.

What you should do is get involved and change the system so it represents you, not bleat that nothing applies to you but you aren't going to do anything about it because you are to busy voting for the latest effluence on Britain's Got Delusional.

And with regards to;

dazza74 said:
May sound mad but I think they might have more joy if they allowed internet voting etc. I didn't vote on Thursday because I was stuck at a market stall all day and in the evening at my Sister's Birthday party. Basically had no time to get to the polling station.

Apply for a postal vote. I have one becuase historically I was often abroad during elections. You can still deliver it on polling day if you wish.
 

Ed Selley

Hi-Fi Editor
EU 1994 Lab 44%/Con 28%
UK 1997 Lab 43%/Con 31%

EU 1999 Con 36%/Lab 28%
UK 2001 Lab 41%/Con 32%

EU 2004 Con 27%/Lab 23%
UK 2005 Lab 41%/Con 32%

EU 2009 Con 27%/Lab 16%
UK 2010... ?

Well, it doesn't tell us that much, apart from that we know that sitting governments don't do too well mid-term.

And that really only the 04/05 results are in any way relevant because prior to this parties such as UKIP had neither the funding or standing to make any inroads at all in the Elections. Prior to this, the results were spread amongst the big three plus "national" parties (SNP, PC etc).

However, when people had got completely to the end of the line with the tories in '94 they signalled a forthcoming Labour victory by giving them 44% - almost exactly what they got in the '97 general election. The same doesn't appear to be happening this time - Labour have received a bigger kicking than the tories got then, but the tories don't appear to have won anyone over in the way that Blair had with the New Labour project.

Because the vote is spread over parties that do not (SNP and PC excepted) do anything like as well at General Elections. Again- look at the council vote- an electorate angry at all politicians over expenses still gave the Tories 38% share and lost Labour every council in England.

UKIP - where will their votes go? Probably not Lib Dem - as that protest was open to them now.

They historically seem to vote Tory. Also remember that very Eurosceptic tories (lots of them) don't vote in European elections at all.

But if I were Clegg or Cameron I'd be asking why - with Labour as unpopular as you could imagine, with the cabinet imploding, with the worst recession since who knows when (apparently), and with the public blaming only one part for the expenses row (if you believe the opinion polls on the matter) - why are they not even breaking 30% (DC) or 20% (NC)?

Very strange.

Because of continued anger at all politicians over expenses, greater choice of parties and because so many people don't care about Europe as I have been saying.

Could it actually be that, disaffected as the voters are with Labour, they still can't bring themselves to vote tory again, and still believe that an LD vote is a wasted one?

To get a majority in a general election the tories need around 40% of the popular vote. If every single UKIP member went tory that'd only be 44%, and I'm not sure that's going to happen.

The 38% share the Tories got in the council elections where UKIP and others are rarely present suggest that basing theory on the Euro elections is not wise.

Steve W[/QUOTE]
 

Wild Weasel

Distinguished Member
43% turnout. :( :thumbsdow

Turnout for the EU elections was only about 30% in areas that didn't also have local elections.

They actually moved the local election back a month so they were on the same day, in an effort to bump up the figures.

That, plus UKIP coming second is hardly a ringing endorsement of the EU.
 

Codehead

Distinguished Member
Poo sandwich
Poo Soup
Roast Poo in gravy
Poo Pudding

[HOMER VOICE]

Mmmmmm, Poo in gravy

[/HOMER VOICE]

True enough. However, my local independant candidate bothered to drop three flyers through my door himself over two weeks setting out his aims. He got my vote.

I wasn't expecting the Euro ballot so I went for UKIP.
 

Sonic67

Banned
After the council election vote Sky said that if the Tories kept that level of support in a General Election then Cameron would be in with a better than 40 seat majority. The Euro election has been a little different with people voting for parties wanting Britain out of Europe.
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
I think the European Elections are also a chance for people to play with their votes because they don't really care or want to make a statement against Europe.

For example as a lifetime tory I voted UKIP in 2004 and meant to again last week but was working late and forgot all about it when I eventually got home.

When it comes to the UK elections people don't tend to play around so much.

As a general rule I think

UKIP gain votes from the Tories
Green gain votes from LD
BNP gain from Labour (sounds odd at first but it is usually the Labour strongholds that have had the strongest BNP success)
SNP gain from Labour (but I think that may be more of a permanent shift)
Tory gain from Labour (or vice versa, depending on who The Sun decides to champion)

For National elections if you move a lot of the UKIP vote back to Tory you will probably get a better picture of what is more likely to happen. Likewise a lot of the green back to LD.

Just my opinion and obviously a general rule.

Cheers,

Nigel
 

Razor

Distinguished Member
You must have been to the Harvester in Ruislip mate ;)


Not for many years but I still remember how bad it is there. :rotfl:
 

namuk

Distinguished Member
Thats probably because they are all as bad as each other and no one wants to vote for any of them.

Its a bit like walking into a restaurant and their menu consists of:

Poo sandwich
Poo Soup
Roast Poo in gravy
Poo Pudding

None of the items on the menu appeal so no one eats there. IMO the same thing happens with elections.

:rotfl: Agreed :thumbsup:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Spielberg, Shyamalan, Aronofsky, Chazelle, Eddie Murphy and Mel Gibson - all the latest movies
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom