British people will never vote for a weirdo as PM …


… so says the disgraced Jeremy Clarkson in yesterday’s Sun newspaper (or so I am reliably informed by the Today Program 😉 ).  The fact that Clarkson was quite right of course, was missed by the party political elite, all the pollsters, and the journalist clever dicks whose very living depends on producing acres of crap 24/7.

Ok - this is your chance before it goes on  eBay ... Who will give me £50?
Ok – this is your chance before it goes on eBay …
Who will give me £50?

The simple reason for them all being wrong is that they could not bear to listen to the still small voice in their own heads that echoed Clarkson’s unmentionable thoughts.

Milliband, as leader and Prime Minister, was never, ever going to happen. He was a number two made into a number one by an outdated party political funding system.

The Liberal Democraps ignored the fact that nobody will vote for a liar as PM. The Lib Dems electoral failure was a tragedy for me personally because I am a natural liberal and hold most of the Lib Dems policies close to my heart, with one major exception. Their support for the nonsensical EU, is a complete mystery to me.

So then, Dave Cameraman just got lucky.

His two main opponents were dead in the water and that, together with the unfair electoral boundaries plus the First past the post system, destroyed the chances of UKIP and the Greens getting their fair share of MPs. Nicola Sturgeon’s surge dug the hole deeper for Milliband, and Clegg’s stubborn resistance to losing power was the icing on the cake.

The case for Proportional Representation has never been stronger.

Some form of PR is required for a truly representatiove democracy.

Perhaps then more than only 66% of the electorate might feel like voting!

But you can see why the Tories and SNP won’t like it!

Just look at what happens to UKIP, SNP & the Green vote for example!

See below:-

 2015 election results seats seats change
votes (m) now under PR
conservative 11,334,920 331 241 -90
labour 9,347,326 232 199 -33
snp 1,454,436 56 31 -25
ukip 3,881,129 1 83 +82
lib dem 2,415,888 8 51 +43
green 1,157,613 1 25 +24
p cymru 181,694 3 4 +1
dup 184,260 8 4 -4
sinn fein 176,232 4 4 0
uup 114,935 2 2 0
sdlp 99,809 3 2 -1
others 184,616 1 4 +3
30,532,858 650 650

5 thoughts on “British people will never vote for a weirdo as PM …

  1. There is no really convincing evidence that compulsory voting makes people more interested in politics. It seems to be an intuitive assumption by some. Australians don’t seem more politically informed, for instance, but many thoughtful people’s votes may well be negated by large numbers who take a guess because they had to appear at the polls or pay a fine. It arguably increases voting for populist measures. People fought hard for the right to vote, not for government to force them to do so.

    I live in Scotland and the debate on independence/union/separation has stirred a great deal of interest in politics, especially among the young. New ideas are needed in order to increase voting whereas UK campaigns tend to be about ‘don’t let the other lot in’. I think the FPP system encourages negative campaigns and impedes the establishment of new parties and new policies.

    So I agree a PR system would help, but I oppose compulsory anything without clearly beneficial results.

    Another point is that many items in the manifestos weren’t enacted (for instance, reform of the Lords which was in all three party manifestos). Tories often did what they liked when in power (for example faith schools) which the majority of people didn’t want.

    1. England turnout 66%, Scotland almost 75%, higher in many constituencies.
      I think this says more about the failure of Westminster to work for the United Kingdom of Great Britain than it does for the SNPs desire for true independance?
      The Scots are just pissed off by a London centric political class, as are 50% of the UK and the SNP did speak up for the Scots, but I still think that the “silent majority” are against independance?
      What say you?

      1. I would have agreed a few weeks ago. Now I’m less certain as there may be real momentum towards independence.
        I think the majority of Scots would reject independence if there was major reform of Westminster. They want their voice heard and Westminster MPs to be more representative of and responsive to Scottish opinion. The Union is very popular but Westminster is not.
        The Scots don’t want a Tory government and will hear no defence of the Tories. That’s been the situation since 1997. Now Labour are in the same position 18 years later but I doubt that will do Scotland or the UK any good.
        I think the difference between the Scots and the other North British is that the Scots can do something about the situation. We can create a modern Scotland but can’t change Westminster.
        Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP party in the Scottish Parliament will soon be responsible for raising £2.5bn of revenue, half the annual revenue for Scotland. Let’s see how she handles that.
        Another factor is what happens in the EU. If there’s a Grexit in this year, as looks possible, that will also affect how Scotland feels about the UK union and the EU union.
        I’m still unionist but may now be in a minority. That can change fast.
        The referendum should have been ‘yes’ for Union or ‘yes’ for separation, but the UK government made a mess of it as usual. They took a no vote for granted and Unionists had to argue for a negative. Unionist leadership here is very poor while the nationalists are younger and more motivated. I doubt the nationalists are right, but if Westminster can’t reform itself Scotland might be better off independent, or at least not worse off.

        Nationalism, religion and ideology – try having a war without them.

  2. Maybe one way of overcoming apathy amongst voters, to increase the 66% electorate turnout, would be to consider compulsory voting. The Belgians adopted this approach over 100 years ago with encouraging results, although, to be fair, it is only compulsory to attend the polling station, not to actually cast a vote. Compulsory voting may motivate non-voters to stay informed and take an interest in what is happening in their country; those who care passionately about their politics will feel engaged to try and persuade those otherwise indifferent to follow their lead.

    1. Perhaps compulsory voting might work but what is the penalty for not voting? Death, disembowelment or a fine?
      I think Proportional Representation would mean that more people might feel that their vote meant something. I would propose a PR where 60% of the votes were 1st past the post on a reduced number of geographic constituencies (say 400 ish) and then, the remaining 250 allocated on a proportional basis. This would mean enlarging the constituencies from 70,000 to approx. 100,000.
      Parliament would then become much more issue based rather than traditional parties getting most of their own way on a minority 35% of the total vote as is the current position!


Leave a Reply