So much is wrong and so much has to change

[BobG]

The Boundary Commission proposals should have been implemented a while ago. The Lib Dems held them up. They'll go through now and the nett effect will be a loss of 20 seats for Labour. That's one of the reaons why I think we are probably in for a considerable period of what, effectively, is one party government. The only possible alternative is an anti Tory coalition. Even that is hardly very likely given the majority just given to what is an unpopular Conservative Party. The Tories could self destruct over Europe I suppose too - but how likely is that to lead to a change of government? Not very I suspect. John Major managed to soldier on.

BobG

[Savvy]

Bob, they are attempting to live on the premise that most people vote labour because that is what their parents and their grand parents before them have done.

Personally I have no connection with this current labour party and for me their fundamental principles do not reflect the world we live in today! I voted Ukip because what they have to say reflects alot of how I personally feel the country should be run and makes basic common and garden common sense! I don't believe for one minute the media hype which portrays them as a party that are about to create the 4th Reich or start gassing eastern europeans!!!

I've had the opportunity to vote for the last 30 years and during that time I've listened to the punch and Judy show of "Oh no we didn't, Oh yes you did"and the latest trump card of "look at the mess we inherited" talking loud whilst saying nothing mantra.  I wanted to see both of them in opposition so that the message that got through would be that the people wouldn't stand for this bullshit anymore.
For me the reality is that we have a government that failed to meet its target on budget deficit, failed to meet its target on controlling immigration and yet dispite this have cake walked back into number 10!!!

I inderstand why you voted UKIP Savvy and in the grand scheme of thingss your one vote didn't change anything around here, it's the UKIP vote in key marginals that have enabled them to cake walk back in, along with the SNP scaremongering. The jocks will get alot of what they want from the Tories, the Tories now know if they humour the SNP it'll make it hard for Labour to get back in, the jocks need to wake up to that fact!

Filo, the reason that the Tories got back in lies from within the Labour Party itself, probably one of the most least charismatic leaders in ages, failed on two major counts in their promises and yet Labour could not come up as the obvious alternative! Deflecting the attention onto UKIP and the SNP won't improve the state they are in!!!

[hoolahoop]

I have a very strong feeling, IDM, that this has happened in my lifetime. I can't remember the details and I've not got time to look them up, but I do have a memory, possibly fantasy!, of someone forming a govenrment here with less votes than the other lot.

I suppose 1964 would be the obvious candidate.

BobG

Doesn't the fact that the Conservatives won more seats than anyone else indicate the a majority of people DO want a Conservative government?

No, 36%  of the electorate voted for the Conservatives, 64% didn't

Not quite, 36-37% of those who voted, voted Conservative. Assuming (as estimated earlier today by the BBC) that two thirds of the electorate actually voted, then it is probably less than 25% of the electorate actually voted Conservative, and therefore over 75% didn't!

With the system now, the party taking the most seats can in theory have small majorities in each seat, and the second placed party have much larger majorities in each constituency so the winning party may have not got the most votes.

A solution?

Separate votes for the government and for local MPs.  Vote as now for the local MP, but for the government use proportional representation.  Again there may be an imbalance between the government votes and the proportional amount of MPs, but you would expect the party winning the government vote to get the most local MPs.

Mrs Thatcher won a landslide victory with 42% of the vote so more than half of the Electorate (who voted) did not want her in charge but they got her and her ideals

Labour will find it difficult from here on in. I have just been to Isle of Wight which is the biggest Constituency I heard on the Radio and a "safe" Conservative Seat

Their MP has already said that IOW is too unwieldy and needs splitting in 2. So there will be 2 "safe" Tory Seats and there is talk already of redrawing the Constituency Boundaries of another 19 areas which will as you may guess produce another 20 Tory safe / marginal Seats. Add to that the demise in Scotland and I seriously don't see Labour getting that near that often from now on

We are well and truly f****d democracy wise especially if you don't want Cameron as PM.

That's simply not true  John. The proposals are to do the exact opposite and even up the disparity that Labour currently have giving them a 2% head start on the Tories.The commons seats will be reduced from 650 to 600 under the proposals.
The Lib/Dems to their credit and I hasten not to their advantage stopped this happening.
The Conservatives intend to change the boundaries as one of their first priorities of course.

There is no one to stop them doing just as they please now ?

Apologies this post is in response to that of donnywolf

P.s. i don't see a situation ever again in my lifetime where there will be a Labour Govt.
Unfortunately it was a case of the wrong leader pushing the wrong agenda in the wrong environment. If and this is a massive 'if' Scotland does stay in the Union then it could happen if the SNP is found out and the Tories make mistakes by pushing far right wing agendas.
Two massive 'its' and highly unlikely to occur at the same time.

I expect the Tories to tamper with the 'fixed term' 5 year election system to a flexible one where they can decide on when to hold elections again.
This was another piece of legislation that the Lib/Dems insisted on........next they will probably unwind anything else that the Lib/Dems insisted on.
Its going to get harsher and harsher with no checks and balances such as the Coalition provided. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola

There's no point complaining that the LDs are not there to hold the Tories back. There is NO-ONE to blame for the destruction of the LDs than the party itself.

I told you 5 years ago this week that the party had signed its own death warrant by going into coalition.

They didn't have to do that. They could have gone for C&S and REALLY driven a hard deal, because they would not have had the issue of Cabinet responsibility.

But they didn't. Clegg was spooked by Mervyn King and Gus O'Donnell strong-arming him into believing that we needed a strong, stable Govt or we'd turn into Greece.

It was bullshit and anyone who knew anything about the economics knew it was bullshit. We were never going to be Greece. Our debt position wasn't remotely like that of Greece and, crucially, we had our own currency so we could face the bond vigilantes down at any time.

If Clegg didn't know this, he should never have got within sniffing distance of having to make that decision. If he DID know that, he had no excuse for saying there was no alternative. Either way EVERYONE now knows that we were never going to be Greece. They teach it as a case study of Great Economic Misunderstandings at Princeton University. But Clegg was still rabbiting the same bullshit during this campaign. Still saying, "Look, we took a hard decision for the country at a time that we could have ended up like Greece." Which makes him either totally ignorant or a shameless liar.

Either way, he's got what was coming to him. And do has his party for simply lining up to be shot alongside him and having neither the balls not the sense to rebel.

They are not coming back from this in our lifetime.

[hoolahoop]

Hoola

There's no point complaining that the LDs are not there to hold the Tories back. There is NO-ONE to blame for the destruction of the LDs than the party itself.

I told you 5 years ago this week that the party had signed its own death warrant by going into coalition.

They didn't have to do that. They could have gone for C&S and REALLY driven a hard deal, because they would not have had the issue of Cabinet responsibility.

But they didn't. Clegg was spooked by Mervyn King and Gus O'Donnell strong-arming him into believing that we needed a strong, stable Govt or we'd turn into Greece.

It was bullshit and anyone who knew anything about the economics knew it was bullshit. We were never going to be Greece. Our debt position wasn't remotely like that of Greece and, crucially, we had our own currency so we could face the bond vigilantes down at any time.

If Clegg didn't know this, he should never have got within sniffing distance of having to make that decision. If he DID know that, he had no excuse for saying there was no alternative. Either way EVERYONE now knows that we were never going to be Greece. They teach it as a case study of Great Economic Misunderstandings at Princeton University. But Clegg was still rabbiting the same bullshit during this campaign. Still saying, "Look, we took a hard decision for the country at a time that we could have ended up like Greece." Which makes him either totally ignorant or a shameless liar.

Either way, he's got what was coming to him. And do has his party for simply lining up to be shot alongside him and having neither the balls not the sense to rebel.

They are not coming back from this in our lifetime.

Billy I'm not complaining only stating there isn't anyone to stop this lot except for an outbreak of fratricide.
For the record , I think that Clegg completely misunderstood the situation. He was both out- manoeuvred and frankly out of his depth.
What now worries me is that both Labour and the Lib/Dems face a " shut out " from power/power sharing for a very long time.

Yes he made major mistakes, yes he and those with him had their eyes on the prize of posts and I think were persuaded by the opportunity.

Was/is he a liar ? Unfortunately I can't answer that not being a party to all the negotiations or by looking the man in the eye. I would never be able to persuade you that he was anything else than a lying, conniving, stupid man/politician - you made your mind up immediately he embarked on the Coalition with the Tories.

Was C & S an option or was he persuaded both by the Tories and the situation that this was the only deal on the table - Coalitions aren't usually agreed to by the bigger partner unless deemed totally necessary - you obviously are privy to facts and conversations that I wasn't privy to.

Sadly all  parties renege on manifesto promises more have been broken by the main parties than the L/Dem party in the past .. ...yes Labour do it too Billy !! I disliked what they did over Tuition fees as much as you did ; like you I wouldn't charge for anything in life but in reality you do need the money to do it . We disagree on the ways and means to get out of the mess post the Banking crisis of 2010 but I am not getting into a discussion on that again .  Patently you have a finer political mind than I have and I don't want to spend months debating this again with you. Sorry I have too much going on mate.

I am devastated that we will have a one party state for a generation - the Tories will now ensure that with their jerrymandering. It will be 18 months before we even have an effective opposition ffs.

As a final point I do think that the Lib/Dems were pinning their hopes on PR and were probably duped by a very clever Tory negotiation team into thinking that might happen.

For years the Lib/Dems and the Liberals before them pushed for a form of PR. Never was that ever needed as much as it is today ...alas the chance has gone possibly forever and now we have disenfranchised folk more than ever.

I could cry mate but this is not the fault of the Lib/Dems and Thursday's results show just how and why it should have happened.

[BobG]

No. Sorry Hools but PR is a recipe for disaster.

We have witnessed a relatively startling growth in the number of at least vaguely credible parties this time around. The Greens are going to become one sooner or later. Moving to PR is not only going to encourage other new parties but it will make the government forming process an exercose in chaos. There's waaaayyy too many examples from 20th C history where PR led to paralysis, chaos and even disaster. I may not like the Tories, but at least they are a government. Coalitions are political lowest common denominators whilst minority governments are pretty well pointless. I, and I hope everyone else, don't want either of them.

As for Clegg, do you suppose that neither him nor anyone in his party ever stopped to think: 'If we join up with XXX (pick your bigger party) then those that vote for us as a protest against the excesses of XXX, will simply see us as both untrustworthy and pointless?' That's what they are now. Untrustworthy and utterly pointless. The bloke is a fool.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola mate, I'll be honest with you, what happened to the LDs is not something I am happy about in a strategic sense.

15 years ago, I thought Blair missed a massive trick in not giving the LDs PR on decent terms. He had flirted with it, and back then, the LDs were much more left-leaning than they became when Clegg, Laws and the Orange Bookers took over the guiding philosophy. If Blair had done that, he'd have pretty much guaranteed a left-leaning coalition Govt for eternity.

As it is, the rebuffing of the LDs while the Labour Party was occupying the centre-ground drove them rightwards. That and the self-destruction of the LDs by Clegg's decision in 2010 has left a big hole where a progressive centre party should be. The final irony was that so many of the 2010 LD supporters appear to have voted Tory or UKIP last week. The final frittering away of the centre-left bloc that could have been built by Blair and Ashdown/Kennedy.

[hoolahoop]

No. Sorry Hools but PR is a recipe for disaster.

We have witnessed a relatively startling growth in the number of at least vaguely credible parties this time around. The Greens are going to become one sooner or later. Moving to PR is not only going to encourage other new parties but it will make the government forming process an exercose in chaos. There's waaaayyy too many examples from 20th C history where PR led to paralysis, chaos and even disaster. I may not like the Tories, but at least they are a government. Coalitions are political lowest common denominators whilst minority governments are pretty well pointless. I, and I hope everyone else, don't want either of them.

As for Clegg, do you suppose that neither him nor anyone in his party ever stopped to think: 'If we join up with XXX (pick your bigger party) then those that vote for us as a protest against the excesses of XXX, will simply see us as both untrustworthy and pointless?' That's what they are now. Untrustworthy and utterly pointless. The bloke is a fool.

BobG

Those excesses didn't stop them getting a majority Bob. Scaremongering did and it was an easy card for the Tories to play once Sturgeon spelt out their position.

Its easy to say "the man's a fool" but he obviously shouldn't have been - he's well educated and must have been vetted at every stage in the same way as all career politicians are. I don't entirely buy that anymore than I believe Ed Milliband to be. Quite plainly he/they were dealing with much finer and experienced political minds than they were.
They were plainly even foolhardedly chasing what for the Lib/Dems would have been the holy grail I.e. PR . For high on 100:years they and the Liberals before them were desperately under represented in the Commons. I know you prefer a 2 party system but it was the Liberals who were replaced by the Labour party early in the 20th century wasn't it ? Union money bought the wherewithal to persuade the electorate as well as a tide of Socialism through many European countries.
The Liberals were traditionally the party that cared for the population of this country for those that were unaware of their historical roots ( not you Bob ).

Incidentally it was good to hear that membership grew by 5000 on Friday ...they will be back and have a far finer and deeper tradition than many would give them credit for.

History won't be as harsh on Clegg and the Lib/Dems as you lefties would have us all believe.

Bob you seriously don't believe that 1st past the post is still fit for purpose do you....you are disenfranchising some 30-45 % of those that can be bothered to vote. Is this fit for purpose are you serious ?

[hoolahoop]

Hoola mate, I'll be honest with you, what happened to the LDs is not something I am happy about in a strategic sense.

15 years ago, I thought Blair missed a massive trick in not giving the LDs PR on decent terms. He had flirted with it, and back then, the LDs were much more left-leaning than they became when Clegg, Laws and the Orange Bookers took over the guiding philosophy. If Blair had done that, he'd have pretty much guaranteed a left-leaning coalition Govt for eternity.

As it is, the rebuffing of the LDs while the Labour Party was occupying the centre-ground drove them rightwards. That and the self-destruction of the LDs by Clegg's decision in 2010 has left a big hole where a progressive centre party should be. The final irony was that so many of the 2010 LD supporters appear to have voted Tory or UKIP last week. The final frittering away of the centre-left bloc that could have been built by Blair and Ashdown/Kennedy.

I know its bizarre  and the biggest irony of them all.

[BobG]

Im serius about the need for a government to have the ability to govern. Coalitions can govern - sometimes. But when times get rough, tough, coalitions don't have a track record worth shit.  And this world is heading towards rougher and tougher times. So yes. I do mean it.

BobG

[hoolahoop]

Im serius about the need for a government to have the ability to govern. Coalitions can govern - sometimes. But when times get rough, tough, coalitions don't have a track record worth shit.  And this world is heading towards rougher and tougher times. So yes. I do mean it.

BobG

Bob , a Coalition has just been in charge of the country for 5 years so patently it can work . I do believe that Clegg honestly thought that he and the party could make a difference. Then they ( not all of them ) thought the price was worth paying if they could just get that PR in place but that was never going to happen whilst the two major parties thought ( wrongly as it happened ) that they could win outright majorities on a roughly alternate basis . of course we all now realise that Labour will probably be shut out for a very very long time. It's ironic isn't it ?
Just a final point, the German parliament seems to get by on their "mixed member" form of PR and it doesn't paralyse their economy .

[Savvy]

"Divided responsibility ultimately means no one is responsible" W.E. Deming 1986.

[hoolahoop]

"Divided responsibility ultimately means no one is responsible" W.E. Deming 1986.

Yes and that is a good quotation Savvy but does it always apply.
Think about how parents bring up their children, both parents may have entirely different views and philosophies on how a child should be brought up.
However that doesn't mean that any child will necessarily turn out good/bad etc.
Power sharing can be done successfully and you again just have to look across to Germany to see how it works.

Politically we have some growing up to do in this country. Perhaps it would help if youngsters were taught about politics from the age of 11 in secondary schools.

I think you might just find that the interest levels would soar.

[BobG]

Oh Hools come on man!!

You simply CANNOT pray in aid the experience of the German political system! Just cast your mind back a tad eh? Think abaout their previous PR system and where that led. Then think about a sense of national shame. Of national guilt. And work out how that little lot impacts ANY political system. They could have Beelzebub himself in charge and they'd make it work alright. They dare not do anything else. Ever.

Bob

[IC1967]

Oh Hools come on man!!

You simply CANNOT pray in aid the experience of the German political system! Just cast your mind back a tad eh? Think abaout their previous PR system and where that led. Then think about a sense of national shame. Of national guilt. And work out how that little lot impacts ANY political system. They could have Beelzebub himself in charge and they'd make it work alright. They dare not do anything else. Ever.

Bob

I'm with Bob on this one. Even though UKIP would have got many more seats I think FPTP for all its flaws is better than PR. With PR there would be too many parties with different agendas for PR to work better than the current system. If you want things to fail then run them by committee. And that's what we'd end up with.

There would be more time spent haggling than running the country. This is a luxury we cannot afford.

I want strong decisive government, not paralysis.

[hoolahoop]

No. Sorry Hools but PR is a recipe for disaster.

We have witnessed a relatively startling growth in the number of at least vaguely credible parties this time around. The Greens are going to become one sooner or later. Moving to PR is not only going to encourage other new parties but it will make the government forming process an exercose in chaos. There's waaaayyy too many examples from 20th C history where PR led to paralysis, chaos and even disaster. I may not like the Tories, but at least they are a government. Coalitions are political lowest common denominators whilst minority governments are pretty well pointless. I, and I hope everyone else, don't want either of them.

As for Clegg, do you suppose that neither him nor anyone in his party ever stopped to think: 'If we join up with XXX (pick your bigger party) then those that vote for us as a protest against the excesses of XXX, will simply see us as both untrustworthy and pointless?' That's what they are now. Untrustworthy and utterly pointless. The bloke is a fool.

BobG

That's nonsense Bob because XXXXparty was given a majority. So apparently they didn't piss off their members. This election was built around the fear of a Labour/SNP Coalition those that previously voted L/,Dem merely voted to keep that from happening... It worked only too well and I'm sure there will be many that are and will be unhappy with the outcome come the end of this Parliament . They have far more chance of recovering lost ground....it will galvanise them . unlike the Labour party they have never been able to take their votes for granted.
Labour were hammered just as much if not more than the L /Dems IMO only the L/Dems don't have the outside influences to contend with I.e. the likes of McCluskey.

[Savvy]

I'm with hoola, Millibands comment about no deal with the SNP under any circumstances effectively sealed labour's fate with the jock's who would never vote Tory left with the SNP as their only real alternative!!

[IC1967]

I'm with hoola, Millibands comment about no deal with the SNP under any circumstances effectively sealed labour's fate with the jock's who would never vote Tory left with the SNP as their only real alternative!!

The daft thing is that he would have done deals with the SNP. Quite a few of the shadow cabinet admitted as much. Milliband had no credibility on this issue whatsoever and was sussed out as a blatant liar by most of the electorate. Any government that was in a minority would have to talk to other parties.

[hoolahoop]

No. Sorry Hools but PR is a recipe for disaster.

We have witnessed a relatively startling growth in the number of at least vaguely credible parties this time around. The Greens are going to become one sooner or later. Moving to PR is not only going to encourage other new parties but it will make the government forming process an exercose in chaos. There's waaaayyy too many examples from 20th C history where PR led to paralysis, chaos and even disaster. I may not like the Tories, but at least they are a government. Coalitions are political lowest common denominators whilst minority governments are pretty well pointless. I, and I hope everyone else, don't want either of them.

As for Clegg, do you suppose that neither him nor anyone in his party ever stopped to think: 'If we join up with XXX (pick your bigger party) then those that vote for us as a protest against the excesses of XXX, will simply see us as both untrustworthy and pointless?' That's what they are now. Untrustworthy and utterly pointless. The bloke is a fool.

BobG

That's nonsense Bob because XXXXparty was given a majority. So apparently they didn't piss off their members. This election was built around the fear of a Labour/SNP Coalition those that previously voted L/,Dem merely voted to keep that from happening... It worked only too well and I'm sure there will be many that are and will be unhappy with the outcome come the end of this Parliament . They have far more chance of recovering lost ground....it will galvanise them . unlike the Labour party they have never been able to take their votes for granted.
Labour were hammered just as much if not more than the L /Dems IMO only the L/Dems don't have the outside influences to contend with I.e. the likes of McCluskey.

I'm with hoola, Millibands comment about no deal with the SNP under any circumstances effectively sealed labour's fate with the jock's who would never vote Tory left with the SNP as their only real alternative!!

The daft thing is that he would have done deals with the SNP. Quite a few of the shadow cabinet admitted as much. Milliband had no credibility on this issue whatsoever and was sussed out as a blatant liar by most of the electorate. Any government that was in a minority would have to talk to other parties.

Mick that didn't make him a blatant liar anymore than the 3 other party leaders ....Cameron, Clegg or Farage

It looked set for a hung parliament to all of them. I know the Tories would like to re- write the history of this election and its various vagaries ( see the bile and sarcasm in the Daily Mail ). The Tories hoped that the fear would work and it did . Basically it was luck brought about by the possible collapse of Labour in Scotland and the vicious mouth of Sturgeon.

Can you confirm whether you are  a Tory, Labour or UKIP because I don' t know about anyone else but I'm confused.......are you too ?

[IC1967]

I'm UKIP as my number one political goal is to get out of Europe as I believe we would be much better off economically. However as I am a hardcore right winger that believes in a smaller state I also support the Tories.

I am also magnanimous and respect what the LibDems did by putting the country first before party. I will give credit where credit is due regardless of who the party is.

I detest Labour because they are economically illiterate and believe in a dependency culture. They always ruin the country when in power and always increase the size of the state thinking this is a good way to buy votes. They also always increase unemployment. I find it incomprehensible why anyone would think voting for them was a good thing.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Im serius about the need for a government to have the ability to govern. Coalitions can govern - sometimes. But when times get rough, tough, coalitions don't have a track record worth shit.  And this world is heading towards rougher and tougher times. So yes. I do mean it.

BobG

Germany has an excellent track record with coalition governments...mind you, I think they go about their politics in a more mature way than the yah-boo way they're conducted in this country.

[BobG]

See post no. 74 Glyn.

Cheers

Bob

[hoolahoop]

See post no. 74 Glyn.

Cheers

Bob

See post no. 73 GLYN  where I refer to the political maturity of modern  Germans. Bob  why are you still referring to what happened high on a century ago. I think modern Germany and hence the Germans deserve more credit than you have given them. I'm sure that any aspiring young German politician doesn't walk into the Reichstag fearing another outbreak of WW2. Your attitude more likely suggests that we as a society have failed to move on ?

[BobG]

Of course the modern Germans are mature Hools. That's the whole point! They are just about the only major nation on the planet who can make it work - for one bleeding obvious reason.

Bob

[hoolahoop]

Of course the modern Germans are mature Hools. That's the whole point! They are just about the only major nation on the planet who can make it work - for one bleeding obvious reason.

Bob

Come on Bob , we are very similar to the Germans only perhaps more inventive. Are you saying that we couldn't possibly look at reasonable ways to improve our democratic processes.
I realise that we generally have had a 2 party system especially during the days of Whig and Tory Governments. However we have flirted with this idea in the past and there is absolutely no reason why good governance can't come from Coalitions.

However I know how things can get out of hand ; the Dutch parliament with it's myriad of secular, religious, left right, up/down is a perfect example of this however they still muddle along and generally they and only they know what they are doing.
Whatever the confusion from outsiders is , they still able to sort it out and end up representing 50% + of the electorate using a form of PR.  It's difficult, it works and generally the Dutch like the Germans prosper. I could go on but we have to stop looking to the past for all the answers as if our form of democracy is really the " mother of all parliaments" . Is it when it rarely represents more than 35% of the vote and therefore c. 25% of the total electorate ?
Is it fit for purpose when such disparities exist between those UKIP and Labour voters and their voices in Parliament ?

[IC1967]

Of course the modern Germans are mature Hools. That's the whole point! They are just about the only major nation on the planet who can make it work - for one bleeding obvious reason.

Bob

Come on Bob , we are very similar to the Germans only perhaps more inventive. Are you saying that we couldn't possibly look at reasonable ways to improve our democratic processes.
I realise that we generally have had a 2 party system especially during the days of Whig and Tory Governments. However we have flirted with this idea in the past and there is absolutely no reason why good governance can't come from Coalitions.

However I know how things can get out of hand ; the Dutch parliament with it's myriad of secular, religious, left right, up/down is a perfect example of this however they still muddle along and generally they and only they know what they are doing.
Whatever the confusion from outsiders is , they still able to sort it out and end up representing 50% + of the electorate using a form of PR.  It's difficult, it works and generally the Dutch like the Germans prosper. I could go on but we have to stop looking to the past for all the answers as if our form of democracy is really the " mother of all parliaments" . Is it when it rarely represents more than 35% of the vote and therefore c. 25% of the total electorate ?
Is it fit for purpose when such disparities exist between those UKIP and Labour voters and their voices in Parliament ?

As a Ukipper I would say it is fit for purpose. It is up to UKIP to get to the level of support where they can win with first past the post. Any party that doesn't achieve this goal doesn't deserve many MPs in my book. I'd rather the bar was set very high than very low. PR sets it too low and would allow all kinds of silly parties (like the Greens) to have too much influence.

If the message is good enough you can succeed with FPTP. UKIP's time will come. I expect us to win many seats come 2020. We will fill the void left by an unfairly judged LibDem party and a dysfunctional Labour party. If we don't make a huge breakthrough then I will be very happy anyway as it would mean the more established parties have got their act together.

[hoolahoop]

Whatever happens we need a strong Opposition bench and quickly not just to blindly reject everything and anything out of hand but to look into things properly.
Early days Cameron is going to be buoyant as are all the Tories but the reality is that there will be plenty of inter-nescine shenanigans down the line with the far right (1922 committee) and plenty of time for the vipers to fight back if organised and coherent.