2015 UK Politics Megathread

[Steamtopia]

We have elections because there's no other method of transferring power peacefully. Policy-making is not power transferal.

The power wouldn't need to be transferred, because it'd be in the hands of the people who are directly affected by it.

You don't understand. Democracy doesn't exist because it's good. Democracy exists because there's nothing better. Every other system of power transferal leads to conflict and instability. The public at large is not smart and is easy manipulated. MP's, on the other hand, tend to be highly educated and not quite as easily manipulated. They spend most of their time studying and researching to make the best possible decisions. People do not, and cannot, commit to the same level of work. People making decisions would make worse decisions simply because it's impossible to fit an MP's schedule into every single person's schedule.

[Steamtopia]

Which is why I listed LibLab w/ an SNP deal as the most likely.

But I can see the SNP kicking up a fuss if labour don't do exactly what they want.

SNP doesn't stand to gain anything from another election. They'll capitulate.

[The Archregimancy]

Hopefully both Labour and the Tories won't work with the SNP, and we'll have another election this year.

Labour can still form a coalition without the SNP. Now, if the Lib Dems and the SNP refuse to sign any deal with Labour, that's when we'll see another election.

Or, indeed, if Labour refuse to sign any deals with the LibDems and the SNP.

[Steamtopia]

Labour can still form a coalition without the SNP. Now, if the Lib Dems and the SNP refuse to sign any deal with Labour, that's when we'll see another election.

Or, indeed, if Labour refuse to sign any deals with the LibDems and the SNP.

I have no idea why they'd risk that.

[The Archregimancy]

The political beliefs were different then. If their's a large demand for another referendum, we should have another referendum.

It's been four years, not a century. We screwed up, we face the consequences. You want to get rid of FPTP? Vote for the parties that want electoral reform, get a referendum, vote against FPTP this time. If we screw it up, we have nobody to blame but ourselves and there's no reason why we should dismantle representative democracy because representation is broken (but still fixable).

We don't need a referendum to pass electoral reform.

Indeed, referenda - which are a post-1960s innovation in our constitutional process - are anathema to the basic constitutional principle of parliamentary supremacy within a representative Westminster democracy.

We do badly need a law outlining precisely under which circumstances, and over which issues, referenda are appropriate, and how their parameters are defined.

But that's a separate issue; otherwise there's absolutely nothing constitutionally stopping a government with a parliamentary majority from simply passing electoral reform via an Act of Parliament.

The only real question is whether that change would then be seen as either desirable or legitimate given the failure of the AV referendum; it would perhaps help if voting reform was mentioned in the manifesto of at least one of the partners in a coalition government. As introducing proportional representation for Westminster is, as it happens, specifically mentioned in both the LibDem and SNP manifestos, the issue is potentially resolvable, especially since it would be reasonable to argue that the failed referendum was a rejection of AV, not PR.

I'm not saying it would be easy or straightforward to resolve given the referendum result; but resolvable it nonetheless is.

[Costa Fierro]

Is the UK going to get rid of FPTP? Well, if you are, prepare for a future of strategic voting.

[Steamtopia]

It's been four years, not a century. We screwed up, we face the consequences. You want to get rid of FPTP? Vote for the parties that want electoral reform, get a referendum, vote against FPTP this time. If we screw it up, we have nobody to blame but ourselves and there's no reason why we should dismantle representative democracy because representation is broken (but still fixable).

We don't need a referendum to pass electoral reform.

Indeed, referenda - which are a post-1960s innovation in our constitutional process - are anathema to the basic constitutional principle of parliamentary supremacy within a representative Westminster democracy.

We do badly need a law outlining precisely under which circumstances, and over which issues, referenda are appropriate, and how their parameters are defined.

But that's a separate issue; otherwise there's absolutely nothing constitutionally stopping a government with a parliamentary majority from simply passing electoral reform via an Act of Parliament.

The only real question is whether that change would then be seen as either desirable or legitimate given the failure of the AV referendum; it would perhaps help if voting reform was mentioned in the manifesto of at least one of the partners in a coalition government. As introducing proportional representation for Westminster is, as it happens, specifically mentioned in both the LibDem and SNP manifestos, the issue is potentially resolvable, especially since it would be reasonable to argue that the failed referendum was a rejection of AV, not PR.

I'm not saying it would be easy or straightforward to resolve given the referendum result; but resolvable it nonetheless is.

Honestly, I don't see Labour accepting proportional representation as part of a coalition agreement. They stand to lose too much.

[Steamtopia]

Is the UK going to get rid of FPTP? Well, if you are, prepare for a future of strategic voting.

Err, what? FPTP is what causes strategic voting.

[Costa Fierro]

Is the UK going to get rid of FPTP? Well, if you are, prepare for a future of strategic voting.

Err, what? FPTP is what causes strategic voting.

Ah, so by getting rid of it, it goes away?

[Steamtopia]

Err, what? FPTP is what causes strategic voting.

Ah, so by getting rid of it, it goes away?

If we adopted a proportional system? Yes.

[The Archregimancy]

Honestly, I don't see Labour accepting proportional representation as part of a coalition agreement. They stand to lose too much.

That very much depends on how proportional representation is framed. I doubt we'd follow Dutch practice here, for example.

[Costa Fierro]

Honestly, I don't see Labour accepting proportional representation as part of a coalition agreement. They stand to lose too much.

That's because Labour doesn't have any viable coalition partners. It has the Greens and that's...it.

[Steamtopia]

Honestly, I don't see Labour accepting proportional representation as part of a coalition agreement. They stand to lose too much.

That very much depends on how proportional representation is framed. I doubt we'd follow Dutch practice here, for example.

I'm not sure how we'd frame it without Labour losing seats?

[Steamtopia]

Honestly, I don't see Labour accepting proportional representation as part of a coalition agreement. They stand to lose too much.

That's because Labour doesn't have any viable coalition partners. It has the Greens and that's...it.

SNP and Lib Dems are both viable depending on negotiations.

[The Archregimancy]

That very much depends on how proportional representation is framed. I doubt we'd follow Dutch practice here, for example.

I'm not sure how we'd frame it without Labour losing seats?

In Scotland, it would now result in Labour gaining seats; in rural Britain, it would result in Labour gaining seats. Whether that would compensate for the urban seats Labour would likely lose, I couldn't say without doing a detailed analysis of the process.

Much, however, depends on how the regions that would underline the PR process would be defined.

[Steamtopia]

I'm not sure how we'd frame it without Labour losing seats?

In Scotland, it would now result in Labour gaining seats; in rural Britain, it would result in Labour gaining seats. Whether that would compensate for the urban seats Labour would likely lose, I couldn't say without doing a detailed analysis of the process.

Much, however, depends on how the regions that would underline the PR process would be defined.

That'd require some careful manipulation of constituencies in favour of Labour.

[Costa Fierro]

If we adopted a proportional system? Yes.

Yeah, no. No, removing FPTP doesn't remove strategic voting. That still happens, albeit differently. We have proportional representation in New Zealand which, along with somewhat strict criteria on actually getting into Parliament. Strategic voting still takes place.

I'd imagine similar scenarios in the UK if they adopted a system similar to MMP. What's the criteria for getting into the House of Commons in the UK, like vote thresholds?

[Purger]

Polls shows something else. They will be tied with the Labours and even most polls are usually biased in favour of left-wing parties across Europe.

But let say C. somehow manages to form a coalition government there must than be a referendum as he promised so.

Polls aren't biased in favour of left-wing parties (not that Labour is left-wing anymore anyway). Tories being tied means they have nobody to coalition with. Who will join them in government, exactly? The SNP? Get real.

Of course they will have a partner in UKIP which underestimated by the left-wing press.
Also the average labour voter is very likely to be ill educated, unsuccessfull, lower class and government depended so they are very easy to manipulate. Think about Brown and Bigotgate which is a clear example of that.

[Steamtopia]

Yeah, no. No, removing FPTP doesn't remove strategic voting. That still happens, albeit differently. We have proportional representation in New Zealand which, along with somewhat strict criteria on actually getting into Parliament. Strategic voting still takes place.

What proportional representation does NZ use that even allows strategic voting to exist?

I'd imagine similar scenarios in the UK if they adopted a system similar to MMP. What's the criteria for getting into the House of Commons in the UK, like vote thresholds?

There aren't any. You come first in a constituency? You're in.

[Steamtopia]

Polls aren't biased in favour of left-wing parties (not that Labour is left-wing anymore anyway). Tories being tied means they have nobody to coalition with. Who will join them in government, exactly? The SNP? Get real.

Of course they will have a partner in UKIP which underestimated by the left-wing press.
Also the average labour voter is very likely to be ill educated, unsuccessfull, lower class and government depended so they are very easy to manipulate. Think about Brown and Bigotgate which is a clear example of that.

UKIP will win three seats, at most. They're not even a factor in the calculations. Northern Irish parties are more important, and they'll never be important.

[Costa Fierro]

What proportional representation does NZ use that even allows strategic voting to exist?

MMP. Basically you have two votes, one for an MP in a constituency and another for the party. You can vote for an MP from one party and give your party vote to the opposition.

What happens is that parties in certain electorates become strategically useful. Not trying to derail the thread, but there are political parties in Parliament that combined have less than one percent of the popular vote and yet have a seat because their candidate won the electorate/constituency. Meanwhile, you have parties that have four times the share of the vote, but because they're under the threshold and don't have an MP, they're excluded. It means that as long as you have a deal signed with the two major parties, you can remain in Parliament.

It also means that both major parties can gang up on smaller ones and deny them seats. This happened in last year's election.

There aren't any. You come first in a constituency? You're in.

Interesting.

[Steamtopia]

What proportional representation does NZ use that even allows strategic voting to exist?

MMP. Basically you have two votes, one for an MP in a constituency and another for the party. You can vote for an MP from one party and give your party vote to the opposition.

What happens is that parties in certain electorates become strategically useful. Not trying to derail the thread, but there are political parties in Parliament that combined have less than one percent of the popular vote and yet have a seat because their candidate won the electorate/constituency. Meanwhile, you have parties that have four times the share of the vote, but because they're under the threshold and don't have an MP, they're excluded. It means that as long as you have a deal signed with the two major parties, you can remain in Parliament.

It also means that both major parties can gang up on smaller ones and deny them seats. This happened in last year's election.

Good thing MMP isn't being suggested by.. anyone, as far as I know. STV is the suggested method going forward.

[Costa Fierro]

UKIP will win three seats, at most. They're not even a factor in the calculations. Northern Irish parties are more important, and they'll never be important.

In FPTP? No. Proportional? Definitely. Especially when it comes to having a majority in order to govern. Which is what needs to be considered if the UK adopts a proportional system.

[Steamtopia]

UKIP will win three seats, at most. They're not even a factor in the calculations. Northern Irish parties are more important, and they'll never be important.

In FPTP? No. Proportional? Definitely. Especially when it comes to having a majority in order to govern. Which is what needs to be considered if the UK adopts a proportional system.

We're not talking about proportional. We're talking about what's actually happening now. UKIP is irrelevant to coalition building this election.

[Angleter]

I know it's silly, but the one concern I have remaining about STV (and specifically STV - I'd oppose any system that would involve party lists) is that it'd in all likelihood ruin election night. But oh, well.