(Of course, *some* people vote Tory because they *are* the rich and privileged)

Jamie, you are pathetic. Fortunately the British people can see through the nonsense of you and people like you.

People vote Tory because they believe the Conservative party can provide the best future for the country. Because they believe the Conservatives, despite your propaganda, are fair minded and do a damned good job. People vote Conservative because they like their local candidate and think he or she knows what they are doing.

Face the facts, Jamie. It is Labour that was out of touch with the British people, and the Green party was so far out of touch they were on another planet. You win elections because the public supports you and what you stand for. You lose them when when they don't like what you stand for. It is that simple.

The Conservatives "do a damned good job", do they?

Oh really? Let's examine that claim.

1. In 2010 George Osborne promised that his austerity experiment would completely eliminate the budget deficit by 2015. In reality he failed to even halve the deficit. Doing a good job?

2. In 2010 Osborne predicted that the UK national debt would have reached £1.232 trillion by 2015. In reality it has risen to £1.489 trillion, which means he has borrowed £257 billion more than he said he would. Doing a good job?

3. In 2010 Osborne predicted that debt would peak at 67.2% of GDP in 2015 and then start falling. In reality the debt has reached 80.4% of GDP and it's still growing. Doing a good job?

4. Before he became Chancellor George Osborne staked his reputation on maintaining the UK's AAA Credit Ratings, In 2013 the UK economy was downgraded for the first time since the 1970s. Doing a good job?

5. George Osborne has overseen the longest sustained decline in real-terms UK wages since records began. Doing a good job?

I'd hate to think what your idea of doing a BAD job would look like!

If I did my job as well as our Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, I'd get the fucking sack.

An example of a bad job is your agrument. You've essentially made the same point 4 times, and then made a point about real time wages that is highly misleading.

Yes, the economy didn't go as well as hoped. The Eurozone performed far worse than forecasts predicted. This naturally led to lower economic growth for us, especially in exports. The Chancellor reacted by reducing the severity of the cuts. As such UK national debt grew more than originally intended.

Ironicly it meant that the Conservative plan ended up looking a lot more like the original Labour plan.

As far as real terms wages goes, the only thing that ultimately matters is the money in your pocket at the end of the month. The elimination of tax up to 10,000+ offset a lot of real terms wage decrease, and the minimum wage has been increasing faster than inflation for some time.

How about that thing where there are way more food banks than before the Cameron government

Octavious, what is your yearly income

@ Thucy

There have been more food banks in every European country, regardless of government. It is a symptom of the global recession and the public desire to help those caught out by it.

British people generally don't talk about how much they get paid. However if you insist I get just over 20,000. Public sector, recently out of uni. Poor pay but great job in flood defense.

@Chumbles

I know you didn't mention me specifically and probably didn't have me in mind, but you said "trying to tinker with the rules because you don't like the result is childish." Let me reiterate that me wanting to tinker with the rules has nothing to do whatsoever with the result. Lots of other people who want to tinker with the rules probably are upset by the result, but don't let that confuse my stance.

Leinad, I definitely didn't have you in mind - your posts are well-reasoned and clear. But I'm particularly irritated by the argument being put forward by labour supporters who, having been in power , only now want PR! I always have, but a peculiar variant. I would prefer STV on a constituency basis for one house, and PR for the total vote to elect the other house in a bicameral parliament!

I think that those who would like to change the rules because they don't like the result are crass. Most of all I hate the people who speak from the egocentric view that they know best and that the majority don't because they've been hoodwinked by the press. That's so patronising I want to ... well... I think it's despicable. I know I am more intelligent on any normal scale than most of the population, but it doesn't make my view any more valid than some guy collecting dustbins. Arguably, it's less valid, as the guys who collect my trash are doing more for me than I them. As for the idiotic use of the term 'the people' for a wide collection of differing and overlapping groups as though they were some kind of homogeneous mass. Finally, even the ranters who hold the views I despise, have every right to do so and don't need to listen to me!

STV is hardly a peculiar variant - a lot of us have been arguing for it for a lot of the time.

Octavious "Yes, the economy didn't go as well as hoped. The Eurozone performed far worse than forecasts predicted. This naturally led to lower economic growth for us, especially in exports. The Chancellor reacted by reducing the severity of the cuts. As such UK national debt grew more than originally intended." this is a classic example of double standards. When global crisis hit, it's Labour's fault. When Tories miss their targets it's EU's fault. Try to be objective not partisan.

I never blamed Labour for the global economic crisis. Labour's fault was to enhance the damage by spending more than we could afford even in the good times. They also relaxed rules for the banks to stupid levels, although in their defence the Tories were guilty of the same madness in that area.

@ Octavious:

So you admit that George Osborne failed to deliver on the majority of his specific economic promises? Ok, good.

Octavious:
"People vote Conservative because they like their local candidate and think he or she knows what they are doing."
I'm pretty sure that I saw you make similar arguments for FPTP before. You do realize that with the party whip system, MP's in parliamentary democracies don't have to do much thinking for themselves, right? I like parliamentary systems better than presidential systems, but combining parliamentary with strict FPTP makes for a bit of an oxymoron in my book.

Americans generally don't talk about pay either, which is too bad, because it's a means of control and prevents organizing. With that kind of wage you really should not be voting conservative. And I make $14,000 annually, to be fair by reciprocating.

Voting by wage doesn't really express someone's opinion as a whole, though. There are also plenty of Americans that are considerably poor and vote Republican because they feel some issues are more important to them than their economic status.

Or because they're stupid.

Viewing the situation from above, you might think so. But they may very well feel other stances held by the party they vote for is far more important.

Thucy doesn't vote Democrat either, so..

"With that kind of wage you really should not be voting conservative."

Octavious, please get your behavior in line with Thucy's cynical worldview ASAP. Thank you.

If you look at the main alternative to fptp then you see the main alternative (PR) comes in a variety of flavors.

The German system (MMP) which is a hybrid of the other two. The system used in Ireland STV - which is awesome, and I don't just say that because I live here.

And a party list system - which people are talking about here, isn't something I would advocate.

The STV system works well because you get to vote for a person and party, and parties can (and do) run multiple candidates in a single constituency - you still know which candidate you voted for, but can vote for more than one candidate from a given party. So, for example, I usually vote for my local green party candidate, and if the fail to get elected, my vote will go to my favorite local labour party candidate - not some unknown distant green party candidate who I don't know...

This would allow cross-party alliances and require lots of coalition governments. But would likely mean UKIP votes in all those constituencies where they failed to get elected would have transfered to the next preferred candidate - possibly the conservative, but maybe labour in some cases, we just don't know, because only first preferences are counted in the UK.

And most Irish politicians are elected with 21-34% of the vote (because there are 3-5 seats per constituency, so you only need 1/5th or 1/3rd of the votes.…)

Yes, STV sounds like a great system. Smaller parties can still get votes, and it completely eliminates the spoiler effect--where voting for a smaller party leads to the least favorite main party getting more seats.

I don't like a straight party list system, because that puts too much power in the hands of the party elites. They can put their establishment favorites at a higher sport where they have a guaranteed seat. I'd much rather some kind MMP or STV. (Or perhaps MMP where the constituencies are multi-winner STV seats, that would presumably cut down on the number of over-hang seats needed.)

MMP is already in use in the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. D'Hondt Method is used for MEP's outside Northern Ireland. STV is used for MEP's in Northern Ireland.

STV is my favourite by far. Party-list is horrible and would never be accepted in Britain. STV is better than MMS or D'Hondt though.

My worldview is not cynical - it is people who believe that they must enslave themselves to money because "that's the way it is" who are cynical

If you can't bring yourself to rip up a £5 note, money is too powerful.

wjessop: Not necessarily. ;-) Take this:
'If you can't bring yourself to smash the plate, dishes are way too powerful.'

I smash the plate

Thucy: That's also not necessarily their worldview. They can not like their conditions and hope they get better, but at the same time not like any of the other promises made by the party that promises better wages and better conditions for them.