UK 2010 General Election!

[Dantius]

Anybody following this? I'm watching it on BBC America, or BBC World, or whatever BBC my television is giving me. I'm very surprised at the results so far- I would have expected the Lib Dems to have gained a much smaller segment than it says thy're getting, as I presumed that the internet polls, like all internet polls, were skewed in their favor as the young, tech-savvy, pro-science type that frequents the internet would be the type that would actually vote for the LD. At least the BNP isn't winning, though they did say they got a few percent of the vote. Scary.

 

Also, I found this image funny:

 

 

(I decided to omit the obligatory Union jack. I guess I'll just have to have a picture of the Sydney Opera House when the Australian election comes around)

[grasshopper]

He's lucky to be alive.

[The Ratt]

That is strangely symbolic. It's would be even funnier if one could construe the plane as the exit poll.

[nikki.]

Yes, I've been following, though I sort of have to. Fortunately, the man in the plane crash was only a candidate for the UK Independence Party. Hopefully the crash shook some of the racism out of him. It's a humourous story with no real bearing on the night as a whole.

 

The BNP got a very small fraction of the vote: never enough to threaten taking seats, but certainly enough in places like Sunderland to threaten local government, which is definitely a concern. Luckily, it was pretty impossible for the BNP to actually get any seats in first past the post, but with all the talk of switching to PR, we may find we've got a few BNP members of parliament next time round.

 

As for the big players, we still need to wait for over 25 seats to find out what happens - it's still possible (though highly unlikely) that the Conservatives will get enough seats to try and rule as a minority government. What's more likely is that Labour and the Lib Dems form a coalition, which is probably not a bad thing in my opinion. For all of Cameron's talk about people "categorically rejecting" Brown, they clearly didn't come running into his arms like he thought they would - people might be fed up with Labour, but they aren't quite ready just yet to get into bed with the Tories, especially Cameron and his Cambridge cronies who speak pretty, but have no real substance.

 

Just a final note: Where the heck did you see that the Lib Dems were gaining ground, Dantius? They're currently down 5 seats, and only up 1% of the vote from last time.

[Student of Trinity]

I found I had to dig a bit in the BBC site to learn that there are over 20 seats out of 650 held by regional and special-interest parties. Completely irrelevant if one party has a majority, just now they are suddenly all potentially kingmakers. But some of these small groups are violently opposed to each other, so it won't be easy to rope in enough of them in a coalition to put the Conservatives over the top. So they're trying now to ally with the third-place Liberal Democrats instead. That would give them a comfortable majority as a coalition, whereas even Labour and Lib Dems together would need help from minor parties.

 

As in the US, the first-past-the-post voting system exaggerates the electoral effect of regional differences and opinion shifts. The Conservatives have gained less than 4% in popular vote, but it has translated into about a 15% gain in House seats (as a fraction of the 650 total, not of their own previous share). And London and the north half of the country are solidly Labour as represented in Parliament, while the rest of England is Conservative; but popular opinion is not nearly so regionally polarized.

 

(In the US they also like to paint regions blue or red, but in the Bush-Kerry election, about a third of Texans voted for Kerry, and about a third of Massachusetts picked Bush.)

[Skomer]

I was wondering if someone would bring up this topic.

 

Here in Scotland, not one seat has changed hands. We might as well have not had an election. The Tories have only one seat here and yet they're the party most likely to form some sort of government. And frustratingly, the Lib Dems got only around 6% less of the popular vote than Labour, but this somehow translates into around 31% less in terms of seats in parliament.

 

On the one hand I'm hoping with all my might that Clegg doesn't cave to Cameron and allow him to form a minority government. Cameron won't offer any substantial concessions to the Lib Dems.

 

On the other hand, the next government is going to have to make some very unpopular choices in terms of Britain's finances, so why not let it be the Tories? It might scupper their chances of any kind of popularity in the next two or three general elections. I'd like to think that the British public doesn't have such a short and selective memory as to make purely popular decision-making an issue, except that I know it does.

[Sss-Chah]

all i know is mad cap'n jack didn't win. i'm disappointed.

[grasshopper]

Based on the results, it now seems sensible for Scotland and England to go their separate ways. That makes me sad.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Skomer

On the other hand, the next government is going to have to make some very unpopular choices in terms of Britain's finances, so why not let it be the Tories? It might scupper their chances of any kind of popularity in the next two or three general elections. I'd like to think that the British public doesn't have such a short and selective memory as to make purely popular decision-making an issue, except that I know it does.

This.

Also, I read somewhere that Clegg has said that the Conservatives should have the right to try and from a majority Parliament, so I'm guessing that they WILL at least flirt with the idea of joining together so that the Tories can form a majority. Constitutionally, Labour should get the opportunity to try and do that first, but realistically, that's not going to get anywhere.

To whoever said that England and Scotland will go their separate ways: No. I think that what this result means is that we need to look long and hard at "First Past the Post", and maybe think about bringing in PR.

[Student of Trinity]

The first-past-the-post system is bad if you like the idea of your views being represented in the country's top forum. PR is better for that. For running a country, though, I think PR is not so great.

 

PR encourages voters to vote for their ideals — and for nothing less than their whole ideals. And then it encourages elected representatives to stand firmly for those ideals, because that's what got them elected. Both of these things sound good but are really bad.

 

Pluralistic societies have people with a huge range of ideals. Society only works if people can agree on a few essential things, and compromise on the less important. Otherwise nothing gets done, and that's usually the worst plan of all. First-past-the-post political systems, and the systems of parties and party discipline that they impose, force both voters and politicians to prioritize their ideals, and compromise on the less important issues. This is a crucial step in democracy. PR backs away from it, and so I think it is a step backward, not forward.

[Kelandon]

The recent level of partisan hatred in the U.S. has made me wonder a little about the electoral process that we have, and the British election is affecting that in ways that are not immediately processable for me (lacking a political science background, I suppose). It seemed as though the British voters didn't like the Labour leader, didn't like the Conservative platform, and didn't take the Liberal Democrats seriously in the end. So Labour lost a bunch of seats, the Conservatives didn't pick up as many as they expected to, and the Lib Dems somehow managed to lose seats in an election that was supposed to be the game-changing victory for them. If there could ever be an election in which all three parties lost, this was that election.

 

I'm sure that American voters would love to do the same right now. If we could just vote against everyone who's ever run for office or ever would think about running for office, we would. But what is the cause of voter dissatisfaction, and it is really justified, at least to the extremes that we're seeing it right now? I'm not sure that I totally have a handle on this. Is it just that the economy is suffering? That seems flimsy.

[grasshopper]

When I have a chance, I'll try and counter Nikki's viewpoint that UKIP are inherently racist, that proportional representation is better that FPTP and that Scotland and England should stay together.

 

Have a look at this article

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election...-observers.html

 

Britain has lots and lots and lots of problems now. A voting system that is conducted on the ideals of trust, is being manipulated by those who have been raised more in a culture based on group self interest. Corruption in elections, that took us over a hundred years of reforms to stamp out, is coming back with a vengence.

 

There was a fair amount of vote fraud in this election, especially with regards to postal votes. If that is not tackled before bringing in a system of proportional representation, those that currently abuse the system will profit even more than they currently do.

[Dintiradan]

I'm also against PR, partly for the reasons Student of Trinity stated, but mostly because I think it's important that every riding have its own MP. I'm a big fan of preferential ballots. They may not solve all the problems associated with first-past-the-post, but they solve most of them, such as penalizing vote splitting.

 

Originally Posted By: boggle

Have a look at this article

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7693655/General-Election-2010-British-voting-system-too-corruptible-warn-Third-World-observers.html

Originally Posted By: TFA

In a joint statement tonight at a press confernce at the Royal Commonwealth Society they said the system “relies a great deal on trust” which may have worked in the past, but could have to be reformed in the future.

 

The British electoral system “relies a great deal on trust” which may have worked in the past, but could have to be reformed in the future.

Heh. Shame on you, Christopher Hope.

[Student of Trinity]

I expect it could be okay to modify first-past-the-post to some degree, but one would have to be wary of unintended consequences. Vote splitting, for instance, can and does lead to a viewpoint that has a nearly two-to-one lead over another viewpoint losing out because it is being represented by two equally popular candidates. But on the other hand, the very danger of this happening tends to force people who agree on essentials to compromise and stand fully together, by supporting one candidate, rather than splintering over minor issues. If the essential issues are really important to people, they will fear vote-splitting enough to do this. If a vote splits, the issues must not have been important enough to enough people for this to be an utter tragedy.

 

I am not a political scientist, but I did read some Hannah Arendt once, and absorbed her view that the most important feature a political system can have is being resistant to degeneration into totalitarianism. Even a pretty clunky system, but that couldn't possibly turn into totalitarianism, would be better than a really efficient system that offered a good chance for a totalitarian party to someday seize control of the state.

 

The point is that you don't want to optimize your political system for making people happy about little things. Instead, you want to make sure that your system will get the big things right, if and when they come up. Big things like not turning into totalitarianism, and not becoming paralyzed by factionalism in a grave national crisis. Those things don't come up often, but those are the things you have to think of first. If you're confident that your system will work pretty well for the big things, you might be wisest to tolerate little inefficiencies, rather than risk screwing up the big things by trying to iron the little things out. In effect: cut out tumors, but tolerate warts. And think carefully about whether a given problem or potential problem is a wart or a tumor.

[Kelandon]

Am I right in thinking that totalitarianism normally comes from civil war or total economic collapse? The Soviet Union arose from a civil war during WWI. Nazi Germany came about because of total economic collapse (among other things). China went communist in a civil war, and so did Vietnam and North Korea (though Korea was more under the influence of the Soviet Union than under its own power, really). Italian Fascism ascended under economic collapse as well. That's not every totalitarian regime in the 20th century, but that's a good number of them, and it seems compelling.

 

I did wonder idly at one point in the past year or two how bad it would have to get before the United States faced the prospect of revolution. We'd probably need at least 20-30% unemployment first, among other things. So we hit the level of pain, but nowhere near the level of throwing the system in jeopardy. I imagine that the same is true in Britain right now.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I expect it could be okay to modify first-past-the-post to some degree, but one would have to be wary of unintended consequences. Vote splitting, for instance, can and does lead to a viewpoint that has a nearly two-to-one lead over another viewpoint losing out because it is being represented by two equally popular candidates. But on the other hand, the very danger of this happening tends to force people who agree on essentials to compromise and stand fully together, by supporting one candidate, rather than splintering over minor issues. If the essential issues are really important to people, they will fear vote-splitting enough to do this. If a vote splits, the issues must not have been important enough to enough people for this to be an utter tragedy.

There's a coordination problem here which you're glossing over: how are voters from all over the country supposed to collectively decide which of the two candidates to rally behind?

Quote:

Instead, you want to make sure that your system will get the big things right, if and when they come up. Big things like not turning into totalitarianism, and not becoming paralyzed by factionalism in a grave national crisis.

My feeling is that these two qualities may be mutually exclusive.

[nikki.]

Just to start with - I never said I was *for* PR, and with some of the responses here, I'm pretty sure that's NOT what we need in reality - my formal political education is non-existent. Everything I haven't picked up myself has been learnt from studying history, because it was necessary to have at least a basic understanding of the workings of the Houses of Parliament. Unfortunately, the period of British history/politics we studied was when the Liberal party was still the biggest party in Parliament.

 

Originally Posted By: boggle

There was a fair amount of vote fraud in this election, especially with regards to postal votes. If that is not tackled before bringing in a system of proportional representation, those that currently abuse the system will profit even more than they currently do.

 

Agreed. This doesn't have anything to do with PR or FPTP, either, but did anybody else think it was ridiculous that voters were being turned away from polling stations? I mean, it was never in huge quantities of numbers, but if it had happened, say, in my constituency were the Conservatives only won by about 500 votes (and after 3 counts), it needn't have been in huge numbers to have made a difference to the outcome.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

There's a coordination problem here which you're glossing over: how are voters from all over the country supposed to collectively decide which of the two candidates to rally behind?

Sure, though in Parliamentary systems it's always local rather than voters from all over the country, at least as far as individual offices are concerned. I guess at the national level a coordination problem can remain, but I think it's still easier to resolve with FPTP than PR, because at least there's an incentive to resolve it before hitting the polls, so that the people do get to vote on your proposed resolution, rather than afterward, when they have no more say and it's all just backroom deals.

Quote:

My feeling is that these two qualities may be mutually exclusive.

They do tend to oppose each other, but I don't think there's such a problem. Dictatorships have often emerged in formally democratic systems where the legislature could never agree on anything, and so a strong executive got away with filling the power vacuum, ruling by decree and so on, because enough people agreed that something had to get done.

This is the back story to National Socialism in Germany, for instance. Hitler was the last in a series of Chancellors who had all struggled to govern with a deadlocked legislature.

The trick for democracy is to find a balance between deadlock and tyranny, and I think that the very few-party politics we like to revile is actually one of the most effective ways of holding that balance.

I think it's true that totalitarianism has emerged in cases where painful experience of anarchy has made people open to stricter control in the name of order, especially if it also promises them the moon and the stars in some form. Up to a point I think people are not wrong to react this way. I think the natural human social instinct is to look out for oneself and for one's extended family, and laugh behind the back of any authority that doesn't rest on fear. Mass corruption, and endemic tax evasion that starves any attempt at modern government, are probably the natural default, unless a society has learned the hard way that it's worth respecting some institutions even to the point of losing money.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

This is the back story to National Socialism in Germany, for instance. Hitler was the last in a series of Chancellors who had all struggled to govern with a deadlocked legislature.

Godwin's law.

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

This is the back story to National Socialism in Germany, for instance. Hitler was the last in a series of Chancellors who had all struggled to govern with a deadlocked legislature.

Godwin's law.

Nah, I don't think so. We're talking about how totalitarianism can arise from democracy, and the rise of the Nazis during the 30s is a perfect example. A better example of Godwin's Law would be calling your parents Nazis because they want you back home before midnight.

And yeah, I realize you're probably joking above. Still, interesting fact: Godwin himself regrets that his law gets in the way of political commentary:

Quote:

When I saw the photographs from Abu Ghraib, for example, I understood instantly the connection between the humiliations inflicted there and the ones the Nazis imposed upon death camp inmates—but I am the one person in the world least able to draw attention to that valid comparison.

[Lilith]

godwin slaw: carrots and sauerkraut

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

Agreed. This doesn't have anything to do with PR or FPTP, either, but did anybody else think it was ridiculous that voters were being turned away from polling stations? I mean, it was never in huge quantities of numbers, but if it had happened, say, in my constituency were the Conservatives only won by about 500 votes (and after 3 counts), it needn't have been in huge numbers to have made a difference to the outcome.

It happens quite often on this side of the pond. Easiest way for the side in control of the polling system to keep the other side from getting votes. Certain areas are given fewer ballots so there will be a limit on the number of opposition votes and they can always blame logistics later for the shortage.

[grasshopper]

<i>It happens quite often on this side of the pond. Easiest way for the side in control of the polling system to keep the other side from getting votes. Certain areas are given fewer ballots so there will be a limit on the number of opposition votes and they can always blame logistics later for the shortage</i>

 

It was things like this that used to let us feel that our elections were fairer, and we were just generally better people than the Americans. No more.

 

A: Right we've got 60,000 voters in this constituency

B: Ok, so how many ballot papers do we need?

A: No idea, hang on, I'll give Jeb Bush a call....wait......

A: Jeb said we need 10. One for each member of our immediate families.

B: Jolly good!

[grasshopper]

About England and Scotland:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/

 

You can click on the various regions here to see the outcomes in each country.

 

What is interesting is how each country voted in completely different ways. England voted Conservative, Scotland voted Labour, NI voted for NI, and Wales had an identity crisis.

 

And every yellow speck on the map is a university town!

 

The UK has a notorious benefits system, the ease of getting these benefits is largely responsible for the massive inflow of various peoples in the last 10 years. There are currently 8 million people of voting age dependent on benefits. At elections everyone gets one vote to choose how to divide the tax pie. The people who pay the taxes have exactly the same amount of say as those who receive them. This is inherently unfair.

 

The Conservatives want to destroy benefits culture, which is why all of the poor wards in cities voted labour.

 

It seems that the Scots see the Tories as being intrinsically English, so refuse to vote for them whatever. If that is true, and what I hear is that lots of Scots really hate the English, then they have kept the most incompetent, most reviled government in history in power, and with a large number of seats, through pure spite.

 

There are of course other reasons, Scots can now vote on English issues, but the English cannot vote on Scottish issues. This results in the Scots voting for English money for themselves and then voting for tax rises in England to fund it.

 

Scotland is determined to leave the UK, to get their independence, then so be it. Scotland seems to be eager to become a province of the EU, whilst England is desperate for more independence. We are holding each other back.

[Khoth]

I think there might have been governments a little more incompetent and/or reviled than the outgoing one.

 

Scottish support for the conservatives was at fairly normal levels until Thatcher. Her economic policies hit Scotland particularly hard, and Scotland was used as the guinea pig for the poll tax. She still hasn't been forgiven.

[grasshopper]

Scots hold a grudge for 20 years... But surely that should be negated by the Heath effect? Oh well, I suppose it is rather hard to reason with people who are still angry about a tax that was last in force when Freddie Mercury was still alive.

[Skomer]

Boggle, what are you talking about? Scots are still holding a grudge about being shafted by the Thatcher government? Give people some credit - Scottish voters didn't go into this election completely hung up on 20 year old events and ignoring the present.

 

And the Scots hate the English? Puhlease. Of course there are differences in ideas and culture, but arguably no more than between say northern and southern England.

[grasshopper]

Quote:

She still hasn't been forgiven.

My statement was a comment on this, nothing original.

[Khoth]

It's not so much a grudge as a suspicion that the same thing will happen again.

 

Of course, once a party becomes small, they stay small because of FPTP.

[grasshopper]

grudge/suspicion... I suppose the outcome is the same if politics between our two nations has really diverged.

 

If this were Geneforge 5, I think I'd be that rebel sympathizing Shaper woman.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

It happens quite often on this side of the pond. Easiest way for the side in control of the polling system to keep the other side from getting votes. Certain areas are given fewer ballots so there will be a limit on the number of opposition votes and they can always blame logistics later for the shortage.

It doesn't happen quite so often anymore, thanks to the advent of computerized voting systems. Now computer error and tampering...

[SkeleTony]

Was watching a Pat O'Connel video a while ago where he lamented people voting for ANY of the big three parties in England. He made the case that all of them are 'Pro-Islamicization' of Britain and said he was going to vote for whom he felt was the only party not being cajoled into voting FOR Islam out of fear of terrorism(I believe the part he was endorsing is called the British Independence Party" or some such).

 

Need to dig up link but what say you to this?

 

I cannot have a very valid opinion because I don't live there and am not all that well informed obviously.

[Lilith]

The UK Independence Party is pretty nutty; it wants to replace the graduated income tax with a flat tax and opposes action on climate change. It's basically a right-wing populist party.

[grasshopper]

Oh dear. Really not as nutty as you might think you know. I will say no more, except that I am interested to see how this Con-Dem coalition pans out. It would be unfortunate if, come next election, both parties found they had bitten off more than they could chew.

[waterplant]

It would seem that there are those in the world who believe that how their world is today is more or less how it's always been (maybe with a bit more horse crap in the streets in the past).

 

Britain has seen Norse colonisation, Romanisation, Irish rule, Frankish rule and, most recently, a Germanisation of the monarchy. It has survived Paganism, Christianisation, Protestantism and secularism. If indeed an Islamisation is taking place then this is just the latest revolution in the evolution and, as we are well aware, those who resist evolution end up looking like monkeys.

 

 

I wonder what indigenous people around the world would think about the Brits being upset about their country being taken over by a foreign culture (which it's not imho).

[Lilith]

honestly by the time muslims become a major demographic group in any western country, the driving force behind any kind of radicalisation in that country will mostly have died off

 

consumer capitalism makes hypocrites of everyone in the end, once they have the resources to participate in it

[grasshopper]

Originally Posted By: waterplant

those who resist evolution end up looking like monkeys.

I will tell that to the Swiss the next time I see them.

One of the things with change is that it is a good idea to make sure that it is positive, both short term, and long term. Evolution is desirable, devolution is not.

I drink too much Coke, it has a bad effect on my teeth, should I welcome the change, or be a monkey and start drinking water?

The current influx is bigger, of course in numbers, but surprisingly also in percentage terms, than any other influx in to the British Isles.

A bit like eating. Eating is good and necessary, but if you eat too fast, you can end up with indigestion.

Indigestion in a person is uncomfortable, and necessitates a good lie down, on a national scale, it has the potential to create all kinds of local, personal tragedies.

Quote:

I wonder what indigenous people around the world would think about the Brits being upset about their country being taken over by a foreign culture

We are not an Imperial nation anymore, although we still try our best to help America be one, for some reason I don't quite understand.

About the Global Warming stuff. We would have achieved more, much much more, on carbon capture, if we had enacted legislation protecting our peat bogs, and built a couple of coal fired power stations, than we did, by selling the contents of the peat bogs at garden centres up and down the land, and building incredibly expensive windfarms that only really make money when the weather is right.

I don't think anyone denies environmental degradation, but there is growing evidence that the link between CO2 concentrations and global warming could be rather tenuous. It seems to be that SO2 is much more of a problem than CO2

[grasshopper]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

honestly by the time muslims become a major demographic group in any western country, the driving force behind any kind of radicalisation in that country will mostly have died off

consumer capitalism makes hypocrites of everyone in the end, once they have the resources to participate in it

I agree with you up to a point, as if that were to happen they would become the dominant culture through sheer force of numbers.

I know quite a lot of British people who have converted to Islam, and then lots of Muslims who want to be more mainstream British.

From what I've heard, the niqab was very rarely seen in 1950s Egypt, but is hard to miss these days, which suggests there may also be some other factors at play.

[grasshopper]

Have you tried this:

 

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

 

It takes between 10 minutes and half an hour depending on how indecisive you are, I was fairly impressed with the results, and wished i'd done it a few years ago, so I could see how my viewpoints have changed.

 

I came out as pretty much dead centre on the y-axis, and a bit up of the x-axis.

[grasshopper]

And then one final link

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404279.html

 

which talks about the european project, and why although some of us love individual nations, do not love the EU.

 

I will stop now, as the roar of tumbleweed is deafening

[Student of Trinity]

We'd appreciate it if you put a series of posts like that one into one single post. You can use the Edit button if you only think of the next parts after posting the earlier ones.

 

The break between posts is a slight strain on a person's attention. A pause between different speakers is fine, but nobody likes to have to. Listen to. One person. Speak. In very. Short bursts with. Longish. Pauses between.

 

So please don't multi-post like that.

[grasshopper]

Sure. A PM would have been fine.

[Khoth]

Immigration is a great scam we run on countries like Poland, Pakistan etc. Those countries spend loads of money educating people for years and years, then once they grow up and stop being useless leeches on society, they come here, do useful work and (normally) pay tax.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

honestly by the time muslims become a major demographic group in any western country, the driving force behind any kind of radicalisation in that country will mostly have died off

You know who disagrees with you? Jack Chick!

[Slawbug]

*facepalm*

[Student of Trinity]

Good ol' Jack Chick. It actually surprised me, once, to learn that someone could master the skill of drawing (at least to a decent degree), and yet be a complete idiot. Now I know that it is even possible to master the skill of writing, and yet be a complete idiot. I'm still kind of amazed about that one, though.

[Cthulhu]

Your political compass:

 

Economic Left/Right: -3.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

 

Wayyyy off the average, I suppose.

[Callie]

Edit: Mod moved discussion.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Now I know that it is even possible to master the skill of writing, and yet be a complete idiot. I'm still kind of amazed about that one, though.

Timecube?

[grasshopper]

 

 

Looks like you might be suffering from an acute case of JDS there mate.