UK General Election 2015

[Guardsman Bass]

RE: Darth Nostril

But you'd have UKIP getting 70-80 MPs in Parliament. They'd be big enough that the Conservatives would almost certainly draw them in as coalition partners, pushing the whole government's policies towards the xenophobic right. It would be worse than what exists now.

[madd0ct0r]

So, does this means more austerity or less for the UK?

It means more goverment cutbacks and privatisation. Austerity is only for the poor.

[Hillary]

RE: Darth Nostril

But you'd have UKIP getting 70-80 MPs in Parliament. They'd be big enough that the Conservatives would almost certainly draw them in as coalition partners, pushing the whole government's policies towards the xenophobic right. It would be worse than what exists now.

As unpleasant as that is, fair representation means fair representation.

[Tribble]

RE: Darth Nostril

But you'd have UKIP getting 70-80 MPs in Parliament. They'd be big enough that the Conservatives would almost certainly draw them in as coalition partners, pushing the whole government's policies towards the xenophobic right. It would be worse than what exists now.

As unpleasant as that is, fair representation means fair representation.

I agree. As much as I dislike certain parties I don't think it's right for millions of voters to be effectively left without any representation, since under first-past-the-post the winner takes all. Plus it's kind of ridiculous that the Tories were able to obtain a majority despite having, what, 35% of the vote? To be fair that's not as bad as one of the elections we had in Toronto where a city Councillor was voted in with just 19% of the vote, but still...

[jwl]

So why did the Lib Dems take a pounding. Keep in mind I have very little knowledge of British politics, so I will take "The British politics for dummies" version.

They lost left wing votes to labour by going into coalition with the conservatives. They lost protest votes to ukip and the greens because they were in government. They lost scottish votes to SNP because of their surge. And they lost right wing votes to the conservatives because reasons.

They also lost a lot of trust because they couldn't deliver on a lot of their manifesto promises.

If the vote were proportional representation instead of first past the post, how much of a difference would that have made? I imagine it would have been quite substantial.

Going by the vote share on wikipedia and multiplying by 650?

Conservative 240
Labour 198
UKIP 82
Lib Dems 51
SNP 31
Greens 25
DUP 4
Plaid Cymru 4
Sinn Féin 4
UUP 3
SDLP 2
Alliance 1
TUSC 1
National Health Action 1
TUV 1

...Which adds up to 648 seats due to rounding error.
Factoring in sinn fein this means you need 322 seats to get a majority. Which just so happens to be the number of seats UKIP+Conservatives have. The northern ireland unionists would be willing to support the conservatives and the Lib Dems would want a Conservative deal to keep UKIP out, but add those seats up and you only get 300, not enough for a majority. So a Conservative/UKIP/other parties agreement would be the only viable government.


Relevant to the discussion, I actually see the amplification system of FPTP as a feature, not a bug. It allows parties to come up with a fully realized package, rather than cobbling together ideas of different parties; and you vote on it directly, rather than have it put together behind the scenes after the election. But what I like more about the system is the idea of electing your own MP who is accountable to you, which you don't get under straight PR.

However, while I like the amplification, I don't like how one party can get more seats than another despite getting less votes. As far as I am concerned removing this problem, with minimal disruption to the above features, would be a good thing.

[Thanas]

I can't wait for the next two years of drama about the UK wanting to "renegotiate" set treaties and wanting to hold another referendum. Ugh. This has the potential to be even more stupid than the Greek situation.

[Starglider]

However, while I like the amplification, I don't like how one party can get more seats than another despite getting less votes. As far as I am concerned removing this problem, with minimal disruption to the above features, would be a good thing.

The other problem is that FTFP heavily punnishes a party for having support spread out across the nation and rewards having support concentrated into a small area. I would think the bias should be the exact opposite; the party with spread out support can represent the whole nation better while the concentrated one is likely to favour their own region above others.

[jwl]

However, while I like the amplification, I don't like how one party can get more seats than another despite getting less votes. As far as I am concerned removing this problem, with minimal disruption to the above features, would be a good thing.

The other problem is that FTFP heavily punishes a party for having support spread out across the nation and rewards having support concentrated into a small area. I would think the bias should be the exact opposite; the party with spread out support can represent the whole nation better while the concentrated one is likely to favour their own region above others.

For small parties. For big parties (i.e the ones likely to win overall or be a major coalition partner), it is the opposite.

Anyway, all the council results are in:

Council Control:
Conservative 95
Labour 61
Lib Dem 3
Residents Association 1
No Overall Control 29

Council Seats:
Conservative 1399
Labour 1031
Lib Dem 183
UKIP 44
Residents Association 43
Greens 18
Liberal Party 4
Independents 128
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015 ... s/councils

[Irbis]

Conservative 240
Labour 198
UKIP 82
Lib Dems 51
SNP 31
Greens 25
DUP 4
Plaid Cymru 4
Sinn Féin 4
UUP 3
SDLP 2
Alliance 1
TUSC 1
National Health Action 1
TUV 1

Most of proportional representations do have cutoff bar, though. Assuming 3% one, you'd have:

Conservative 248
Labour 205
UKIP 85
Lib Dems 53
SNP 33
Greens 26

While granted, Tory/UKIP coalition would still have 330 seats like now, they would do so with 49.5% of popular vote, instead of just 36%. This would give the government much better mandate. Then, there is exact mechanism of distributing votes - most of proportional systems won't use simple % numbers, they weight the distribution towards bigger or smaller parties. D'Hondt method, which is ironically used in some UK elections, would give a bit of cutoff votes to smaller parties (assuming they would band together), and with even just 6-7 of these slipping away from Tories you'd have left wing coalition (which got 50.5%, remember) having majority. Sainte-Laguë method would make it even more clear win for popular majority.

Relevant to the discussion, I actually see the amplification system of FPTP as a feature, not a bug. It allows parties to come up with a fully realized package, rather than cobbling together ideas of different parties; and you vote on it directly, rather than have it put together behind the scenes after the election. But what I like more about the system is the idea of electing your own MP who is accountable to you, which you don't get under straight PR.

That is cute, but when ever it worked? UK went to war in Iraq, and who exactly lost seat over this? Highly visible party leader? So, yeah.

In fact, observation of just how it works in USA suggests it leads to pork ballooning where every state tries to tear away a bit of surplus to themselves resulting in jobs easily done in one factory being spread over 10-20 states. Being accountable in politics often means looking at very narrow interests, not common good. Do you thing it's net positive, or just wasteful overweight encouraging egoism? YMMV.

[jwl]

Most of proportional representations do have cutoff bar, though. Assuming 3% one, you'd have:

Conservative 248
Labour 205
UKIP 85
Lib Dems 53
SNP 33
Greens 26

Yeah, Northern Ireland is going to be happy with that result.

While granted, Tory/UKIP coalition would still have 330 seats like now, they would do so with 49.5% of popular vote, instead of just 36%. This would give the government much better mandate.

Er, no, 0% of the electorate voted for a tory/ukip coalition, it isn't on your ballot paper. A system where you would vote for them would be a system where you rank coalition combinations on your ballot paper and that is used as a basis for working out the combos automatically.

Then, there is exact mechanism of distributing votes - most of proportional systems won't use simple % numbers, they weight the distribution towards bigger or smaller parties. D'Hondt method, which is ironically used in some UK elections, would give a bit of cutoff votes to smaller parties (assuming they would band together), and with even just 6-7 of these slipping away from Tories you'd have left wing coalition (which got 50.5%, remember) having majority. Sainte-Laguë method would make it even more clear win for popular majority.

Well then it isn't really straight PR, it is a system which approximates PR. Anyway, I have no idea what any of these are so if you're going to throw names at me give me some idea how they work.

Relevant to the discussion, I actually see the amplification system of FPTP as a feature, not a bug. It allows parties to come up with a fully realized package, rather than cobbling together ideas of different parties; and you vote on it directly, rather than have it put together behind the scenes after the election. But what I like more about the system is the idea of electing your own MP who is accountable to you, which you don't get under straight PR.

That is cute, but when ever it worked? UK went to war in Iraq, and who exactly lost seat over this? Highly visible party leader? So, yeah.

I imagine quite a few people lost seats over this, but I can't name any particular ones.

In fact, observation of just how it works in USA suggests it leads to pork ballooning where every state tries to tear away a bit of surplus to themselves resulting in jobs easily done in one factory being spread over 10-20 states.

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying.

Being accountable in politics often means looking at very narrow interests, not common good. Do you thing it's net positive, or just wasteful overweight encouraging egoism? YMMV.

What I mean by that it you can write to your MP about an issue you have and you can actually expect them to write back and try to sort the issue out rather than ignoring you. I prefer this. You also have a clear idea of who you are voting for.

[Welf]

Relevant to the discussion, I actually see the amplification system of FPTP as a feature, not a bug. It allows parties to come up with a fully realized package, rather than cobbling together ideas of different parties; and you vote on it directly, rather than have it put together behind the scenes after the election. But what I like more about the system is the idea of electing your own MP who is accountable to you, which you don't get under straight PR.

That sounds nice in theory, in practice it means you don't have a choice. You can vote either party A, party B, or throw away your vote. Even if you vote a third party, it is still pointless because he or she will sit alone in parliament and will never get anything through. A FPTP system creates a cartel of two parties that keeps outsiders out of the political process.

Er, no, 0% of the electorate voted for a tory/ukip coalition, it isn't on your ballot paper. A system where you would vote for them would be a system where you rank coalition combinations on your ballot paper and that is used as a basis for working out the combos automatically.

63,1% of the electorate decided against Tory, and yet they will get 100% Tory policy. How is that better?

[Iroscato]

Question; are there any convincing arguments for NOT having total proportional representation in parliament, aside from blowhard dinosaurs muttering about how change is bad? I'm genuinely curious and have yet to see a real downside to it. Please help an Englishman out.

[jwl]

Relevant to the discussion, I actually see the amplification system of FPTP as a feature, not a bug. It allows parties to come up with a fully realized package, rather than cobbling together ideas of different parties; and you vote on it directly, rather than have it put together behind the scenes after the election. But what I like more about the system is the idea of electing your own MP who is accountable to you, which you don't get under straight PR.

That sounds nice in theory, in practice it means you don't have a choice. You can vote either party A, party B, or throw away your vote. Even if you vote a third party, it is still pointless because he or she will sit alone in parliament and will never get anything through. A FPTP system creates a cartel of two parties that keeps outsiders out of the political process.

There are plenty of things I am aware of that an MPs have got done whilst in opposition. They aren't going to do anything like, say, stop the iraq war, but that has virtually no impact on my everyday life anyway, so who cares? And the point is, your local MP will fight your case even if you voted against them (and you don't need to tell them that anyway). Or at least, they will do if they are a good one.

Er, no, 0% of the electorate voted for a tory/ukip coalition, it isn't on your ballot paper. A system where you would vote for them would be a system where you rank coalition combinations on your ballot paper and that is used as a basis for working out the combos automatically.

63,1% of the electorate decided against Tory, and yet they will get 100% Tory policy. How is that better?

Because a large amount of the people who voted against tory, and almost all of the people who voted for tory, would rather a majority tory government formed than a tory/ukip coalition for one thing.

[Starglider]

There is nothing in the world that prohibits politicians to keep advancing their goals. If their goals are the independence of Scotland, and they can convince the majority to follow them in the future, they can very well have a second, third or the hundredth referendum, neh?

I can't wait for the next two years of drama about the UK wanting to "renegotiate" set treaties and wanting to hold another referendum. Ugh.

What's this, inconsistency in the far-left mind meld? It's perfectly ok for the Scotland to hold a neverendum, constantly demand special treatment, make every effort to bend UK law to its advantage and generally try to destroy the British Union, but somehow it's not ok for the UK itself to question the endless beurecracy creep and German empire building of the European Union? Is Scotland just incrementally socialist enough to cross over the invisible communist solidarity line where everything they do is permissable and laudable, while the UK as a whole is still on the side of the line where everything they do is evil and disruptive?

[Tribble]

Because a large amount of the people who voted against tory, and almost all of the people who voted for tory, would rather a majority tory government formed than a tory/ukip coalition for one thing.

So, are you against proportional representation because it tends to lead to coalition governments? If I'm not mistaken the previous government was a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. Were you against that as well?

Or is it that you are against proportional representation because of UKIP in particular?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well, looks like I was wrong, no hung parliament. Honestly, I'm ok with that, I'd rather have a party with a small majority than another damned coalition. Having a small majority means they actually have to listen to small parties and backbenchers, as even a half dozen voting against the government would be a serious problem.

[Minischoles]

Well, looks like I was wrong, no hung parliament. Honestly, I'm ok with that, I'd rather have a party with a small majority than another damned coalition. Having a small majority means they actually have to listen to small parties and backbenchers, as even a half dozen voting against the government would be a serious problem.

The problem is the Tory backbenchers are well....even the most polite definition of them starts at massive cunts and gets progressively worse. John Major referred to them as the Bloody Bastards and Cameron is going to be in a lot of trouble with them.

He might have won with a majority, but its so slim, so narrow that his backbenchers hold all the power now and were already rumbling and revolting as part of the last parliament. He's going to have to placate them and that means:
- yet more NHS cuts
- more benefits cuts, they've literally already announced capping one benefit for disable people
- fox hunting ban being repealed (again already announced)
- the so called 'Snoopers Charter' becoming law, giving them massively increased surveillance powers
- and finally a referendum on staying in the EU

Of them all the last is by far the most dangerous, Cameron I think knows that exiting the EU is a terrible prospect, but he's at the mercy of his backbench and further UKIP challenges.

[Thanas]

What's this, inconsistency in the far-left mind meld? It's perfectly ok for the Scotland to hold a neverendum, constantly demand special treatment, make every effort to bend UK law to its advantage and generally try to destroy the British Union, but somehow it's not ok for the UK itself to question the endless beurecracy creep and German empire building of the European Union? Is Scotland just incrementally socialist enough to cross over the invisible communist solidarity line where everything they do is permissable and laudable, while the UK as a whole is still on the side of the line where everything they do is evil and disruptive?

Starglider, you really are one special furry. Never let anybody tell you otherwíse, precious. Now, on the off-chance that above was a serious comment and not a masterpiece in comedy, there is a bit of a difference. First, how many goddamn referendums do you need? You had one thirty-five years ago already. Your Government signed the treaties and continues to do so. But I guess the British are very fickle and cannot be trusted to keep their word from one generation to the next.

Your parts about bureaucracy creep are nonsense. Take a look at the numbers of the EU bureaucracy and you'll find that they have less overhead than any UK administration while performing better. They also are required to take some bureaucracy measures like silly accounting rules because Britain demands they do so, but sure, that too is the EU's fault. Not Britains, no no, because you are after all precious.

As for German Empire building, so far we bloody have got none of the benefits I commonly associate with Empire. I mean, just judging from the British examples, where are the lesser races to wipe out civilize? Where is my India to oppress for centuries? Where is my Ireland to starve? And where is my Africa to rape and plunder?

[jwl]

Because a large amount of the people who voted against tory, and almost all of the people who voted for tory, would rather a majority tory government formed than a tory/ukip coalition for one thing.

So, are you against proportional representation because it tends to lead to coalition governments? If I'm not mistaken the previous government was a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. Were you against that as well?

Or is it that you are against proportional representation because of UKIP in particular?

The main reason I'm against PR is because it doesn't allow me to elect and have my own MP. Another reason why I don't like PR is that it makes coalition governments more likely. I actually would have preferred the last coalition compared to the tories on their own (and it happened anyway), but what I wouldn't want is a perpetual coalition with the lib dems going back who knows how long, and I wouldn't want a ukip/conservative coalition this time round.

I think if you are going to have a coalition-based government without proper MPs, PR still isn't they way to go. A much better system, in my opinion, is an AV style system where you can rank coalition outcomes. For example, if you are a left-leading lib dem voter you could put:
1) Lib dem Majority
2) Lib Dem/Labour coalition
3) Lib Dem/Tory coalition
4) Lib Dem/Tory/SNP Coalition
5) Labour majority
etc.
I'm thinking maybe a ballot paper as a grid with the parties on the top, numbers down the side and you tick as many boxes as you want. Then the usual AV method decides the overall outcome, but it uses another algorithm to work out the seat assignment, making sure to give the winning combo enough seats for a majority. That way you actually vote for a particular coalition combination, rather than have the politicians decide on a result no-one explicitly voted for.

On the note of whether I don't like the ukip? Yes, that's true. I don't particularly like the greens either. And yes, this does affect my support for FPTP. But not more than the other two reasons. But, like I said, I don't like how the system allows you to be higher in the seat rankings than the vote rankings. So I propose a system where, if a party ranks lower in seats than in votes, it gains extra seats which make the seat number up to the same as the one above them. Unfortunately, this introduces a few fake MPs and makes coalitions more likely, but in this case, since it only does this to a relatively small degree I'm prepared to compromise that. Under that system, the result would be:

Conservative 331
Labour 232
SNP 56
UKIP 56
Lib Dem 56
DUP 8
Greens 8
Sinn Fein 4
Plaid Cymru 4
SDLP 3
UUP 3

Which would result in a conservative coalition with Lib Dems or UKIP and increase the number of UKIP seats, but there you go.

What's this, inconsistency in the far-left mind meld? It's perfectly ok for the Scotland to hold a neverendum, constantly demand special treatment, make every effort to bend UK law to its advantage and generally try to destroy the British Union, but somehow it's not ok for the UK itself to question the endless beurecracy creep and German empire building of the European Union? Is Scotland just incrementally socialist enough to cross over the invisible communist solidarity line where everything they do is permissable and laudable, while the UK as a whole is still on the side of the line where everything they do is evil and disruptive?

Starglider, you really are one special furry. Never let anybody tell you otherwíse, precious. Now, on the off-chance that above was a serious comment and not a masterpiece in comedy, there is a bit of a difference. First, how many goddamn referendums do you need? You had one thirty-five years ago already. Your Government signed the treaties and continues to do so. But I guess the British are very fickle and cannot be trusted to keep their word from one generation to the next.

He's talking in reference to scotland, who had one two years ago. Anyway, one of the main reasons people tend to not like the EU is they feel politicians by stealth increased the political power of the EU, whilst they feel they had voted to stay in the EEC as a trade agreement only. This is, of course, among the people who actually voted in the referendum.

[bilateralrope]

The main reason I'm against PR is because it doesn't allow me to elect and have my own MP.

Mixed-member proportional representation is a PR system with local MPs.

[jwl]

The main reason I'm against PR is because it doesn't allow me to elect and have my own MP.

Mixed-member proportional representation is a PR system with local MPs.

So this is suggesting some elected MPs in the house of commons don't get a vote? That's better, but not by a lot. How do you decide which MPs get the vote?

[Tribble]

I don't know how things work in the UK, but in Canada who your local MP really doesn't matter, unless they are the party leader or have a position in Cabinet. Most of them do little more than rubber stamp the party platform, read out prepared speeches and read out prepared answers when the media dares ask a question. We might as well get rid of all our MPs and just vote on who we want for Prime Minister for the next few years. Failing that, the same thing would no doubt happen here proportional voting or mixed voting, but at least the the number of seats won for each party will more closely match the actual election results.

With regards to coalition governments, I'm guessing they wouldn't work in the UK for some reason over the long term? Because there are several countries where coalition governments are the norm, and most of them seem to do ok.

[Welf]

The main reason I'm against PR is because it doesn't allow me to elect and have my own MP.

Mixed-member proportional representation is a PR system with local MPs.

So this is suggesting some elected MPs in the house of commons don't get a vote? That's better, but not by a lot. How do you decide which MPs get the vote?

Bot quite, all the MPs can vote and have the same rights. There is no discrimination between them.

[Ultonius]

As for German Empire building, so far we bloody have got none of the benefits I commonly associate with Empire. I mean, just judging from the British examples, where are the lesser races to wipe out civilize? Where is my India to oppress for centuries? Where is my Ireland to starve? And where is my Africa to rape and plunder?

Germany already did its share of plundering and starvation in Africa.

[Eternal_Freedom]

On a lighter note, this article shows that the Simpsons (fairly) accurately predicted the results. Now if Maggie had spilt a bit of ketchup on her, it would be even better.