The debt to GDP ratio reduces even if you run a budget deficit, so long as the budget deficit is lower than nominal GDP growth (the latter is usually 3-4%, split between inflation and real output growth). So getting the deficit below that level is a first important step. IIRC, it was about 5% at the end of the 2014/2015 financial year, so we're not far off.

For the same reason, debt/GDP reduce really quite quickly even if you only run a small (2/3%) budget surplus. I do hope we make progress on this. Like or loathe austerity, I'm not comfortable with debt:GDP of around 80%.

To make this ratio comparable with something we're more familiar with, mortgage loan to personal income ratios, it helps to look at the ratio of public debt to government INCOME, which is of course a lot lower than GDP. Don't have time to check, but I think it's about 40% of GDP. Which would make our public debt:government income ratio about 200%.

When you think that mortgage loans to income can easily exceed that these days, and that the government pays much lower interest rates than we do as individuals, it maybe doesn't sound so bad. Still wouldn't like it to be any higher though.

If I'm reading the results correctly, Greens got about 3.7% of the vote. Might not sound much, but it's up from just 0.9% in 2010 (which sounds low to me - need to check).

At 1.1 million votes, they got about 80% as many votes as the SNP did. But the SNP will have 56 seats and the Greens just 1 (UKIP will be an order of magnitude more miffed, but I don't like them).

Great system.

resigned, but may stand for re-election, so business as usual.

My guess is that they won't just "go away" , which would be my preferred option

Posted By: GarethCGreens got about 3.7% of the vote. Might not sound much, but it's up from just 0.9% in 2010 (which sounds low to me - need to check).

At 1.1 million votes, they got about 80% as many votes as the SNP did

Thanks for that - haven't been able to find that info, but that's what it looked like, seat by seat - 1% to 5% Green gain every time, and a Green candidate for almost every seat for the first time too.

But really not a flicker of interest from all the commentators - not a mention of the Greens even when they were there doing interesting stuff on every chart. Conspiracy? looks more like complete Green-blindness - they don't get it at all.

Here in mid Devon, 52% Tory as ever, next UKIP 13%, Lab 13%, Lib 12%, then Green 9% - 4866 votes - not bad! Also a Green District candidate - results awaited.

check out actually votes cast so far for smaller parties snp 1.5mil 56 seats / greens 1.1mil 1seat./ ukip 3.1mil 1seat
thats the problem with fptp

they keep telling me to be proud of my democratic right.
funny version of democracy we're being sold here

Posted By: jamesingramcheck out actually votes cast so far for smaller parties snp 1.5mil 56 seats / greens 1.1mil 1seat./ ukip 3.1mil 1seat thats the problem with fptp

More a problem with a democracy based on constituencies than FPTP.

I am in split minds about the Green Party. My 'environmental' side likes one or two of their idea, but that is about all.
I liked what the Blair/Brown government tried to achieve, but the monetary and complexity costs were too high.
Maybe the SNP can have some influence in Westminster, most of them will have to sit on some sort of committee, some should end up on an environment, building, energy one.

Did I hear right that the West Country is all Tory bar 4 places, that is a turn around from a couple of decades ago.

a bit late now - but interesting nevertheless

www.voteforpolicies.org.uk

gives you the various parties policies laid out in a uniform, bullet point format - you choose which fits you best, and it tells you which way to vote. I came out mostly Green, with a little bit of Red, but no Blue or Yellow.

It takes about 30 minutes - but time well spent.

SteamyTea claimed: "More a problem with a democracy based on constituencies than FPTP"

How do you work that out? Most electoral systems have constituencies.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/first-past-the-post et seq

SteamyTea amused me : "I liked what the Blair/Brown government tried to achieve"

Making Tony a multi-millionaire you mean?

Posted By: djhHow do you work that out? Most electoral systems have constituencies.

Yes they do, and it leads to this problem that more people can vote against the winner than for it. But you would get the same with PR within a constituency, that then send MP to Parliament.
In the 'olden days' you voted for your local MP, who then sided with people he had most affinity with in Parliament (bit more complicated than that, but you get the gist). Now we have MPs that are bound by their party rules and manifestos (or are meant to be).
This now means that the local candidate we vote for, who may or may not be voted in for their 'local' popularity, is tied to a party.

The other thing to remember is that only 66% of the population voted, so to work out the true number that each party got, you have to work out the ratios at the local level.

I am not sticking up for FPTP or against PR, just pointing out that it is more complicated that people think.
Not a case of working out the mean percentage of voters for each party and multiplying it by the number of voters.

Posted By: djhMaking Tony a multi-millionaire you mean?

What I meant was the stuff that John Prescott tried to do to raise building standards before it got watered down.

Posted By: djhDid you follow the link?

No, but I got BC 'O' Level and I remember that every system devised has problems.
PR relies on very high voter turn out to get a truer representation in parliament. FPTP don't.
You could get half the constituencies having high voter turn out then having a skewing affect on the ones that have low voter turnout.
Or just have a third house, a small executive that are the rule proposers, then the Commons votes on those rules, then they get checked in the Lords. Kind of what happens now with the Cabinet saying what will and won't be discussed, but at least we would have a separate vote about who is the executive.
There is a separate argument to be had about voter turnout. My view is that the people that don't vote are happy with the last parliament, so the votes should be divided out in that ratio, but there are problems with that.

Still, things are now, till the EU vote, and that will be a long and boring slog.

Landlord's builder, here this morning, lovely man, we're v fond of him: "I have'nt bothered to vote for 15yrs - if I had, prob UKIP". Constantly amazed how good friends, scratch the surface and they're fascists!

Seems to me the Scottish working class has somehow escaped the matrix/trance by which 'they' have neutralised the English working class. The Scots see through the lie that English have fallen for - that it's all the immigrants' and the Muslims' fault - the Scots waste no energy on that; they even escape the left-right polarity which is another trance-inducer - they take matters into their own hands so they can at least make their own mistakes.

Strange that Wales (and Cornwall) strenuously voted to prevent any such, for themselves.

Is the Mail and Express sold in Scotland, or do they have their own rags?

The Greens got more than 10% of the number of votes of the Tories.

1157613 / 11334920 = 0.102128…

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: CWatters</cite>Now that it's all over...

I think DC will give the scots what they want... Tax raising powers. That way the Barnet Formula can be axed and cuts south of the border won't need to be as great as they would otherwise be.


That's exactly what I think CW. It's the old adage; "give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves". He's got nothing to loose.

UKIP voters Fascists? Eh, all three million of them? Wow!
As well as the usual touted reasons I think It's also a reaction to the often anti-English rabid nationalism seen North of the border. Strange how English Nationalism is frowned upon.
Despite the SNP landslide it's still left 50% of their population disenfranchised. That's why the SNP IMO wont risk another referendum any time soon. Having been the happy recipients of a FPTP system I wonder if they will go for some form of PR.

It's 'is thread, 'e can do what 'e wants.

Synggapa, yep, the SNP would likely have got half the Scottish seats rather than most. Ditto, the Tories would have got about a third of the overall UK seats rather than more than half.

But does any country or government in the world use a proportional representation scheme anything like you seem to be imagining? Never heard of one where representatives are shuffled around to represent different areas.

All that I know of have larger constituencies with multiple representatives for each. E.g. the European parliament has constituencies which are mostly whole countries except a few which are divided up: e.g. the UK is divided into Scotland, Wales, NI, and some number (about 10?) English regions.