Britain - The Official Thread

[Famine]

How can FPF be to blame when all the options where ****?

I didn't say it was. I said that FPTP was part of the issue - and specifically qualified it with gerrymandering. Check it:

In part the gerrymandered FPTP system did it for us.

Of course, looking beyond FPTP in this election, we have it in the previous ones too - creating the conditions for this one.

Look at Johnson's numbers from this election. 43.6% vote share and 13.9m votes - the second largest numbers post-74 in each case. But 364 seats is only fifth. Johnson had to win 38,000 votes to get a seat.

Look at Blair in 2001. 40.7% vote share and 10.7m votes - 8th and 9th post-74. He won, pro rata, 407 seats - 26,000 votes per seat. Corbyn gets more popular vote than Blair's 1997 landslide and bizarre 2005 victory, but loses in 2017 and 2019 at 49k votes per seat.

That's not numbers of voters that are at fault, but a system that creates artificial geographical boundaries drawn around populations that vary by as much as 500% (Na h-Eileanan an Iar at 21,800; Isle of Wight at 110,700) and whoever the most amount of people in there say they want to represent them gets the job - with no minimum standard. And there's 650 jobs, for some reason.

Blair was efficient because he targeted the least-effort places. If you need 40% of the vote in a constituency to win it on a 60% turnout, you only need 4,000 people in the Hebrides, compared to 20,000 on IoW. He beat Conservatives who incessantly tried the nationwide approach, and Corbyn tried exactly the same thing. Corbyn went where he was popular already, Johnson spend a week in the North East and captured seats that haven't been blue in 150 years.


The actual voters haven't given the Conservatives a majority. Far from it, in fact - they got nearly 44% of the vote, and that's not 50%. FPTP has given them the majority.

I don't think that PR is the answer, because it's just about inevitable that PR would create a hung parliament every time and we'd see the last 18 months played out every day for the rest of time. AV would work - it would require a candidate to score 50% or better in their constituency to get the job - but I think it should be paired with a NOTA option.

That and redrawn boundaries to equalise populations. That's not always possible - the Scottish islands are quite different from the mainland and probably ought not to be folded into them, but IoW is an entire county on its own with 110,000 people and one MP. Sheffield has one council but five MPs for 350,000 people (and yes, Dore, Chapeltown, and Attercliffe are pretty distinct culturally and politically, but why do we need three different MPs for it?). 11% of all MPs represent London...

 

[baldgye]

I didn't say it was.

Sorry, it wasn't really a question directed at you, just part of my ranting post. I'm not pro-FPTP in anyway.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I don't think that PR is the answer, because it's just about inevitable that PR would create a hung parliament every time and we'd see the last 18 months played out every day for the rest of time.

I don't think PR can work that well if we trying and integrate it into the current set-up, it needs wider and deeper change to the parliament, and local and national government, than just changing how peoples votes are allocated. First thing I'd also want to see is the abolishment of the whip... a hung parliament is less of an issue if there's a reduction in voting based only along party lines (as we saw so many times over the last 18 months). Parliament should be about representation, not winning/losing, or tribalistic battles for control.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I don't think that PR is the answer, because it's just about inevitable that PR would create a hung parliament every time and we'd see the last 18 months played out every day for the rest of time. AV would work - it would require a candidate to score 50% or better in their constituency to get the job - but I think it should be paired with a NOTA

It would lead to an inevitable Con/Lib or Lab/Lib coalition each time. The only way it wouldn't work is if the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed.

 

[Dotini]

A guy named Brendan O'Neill says the election was a great victory for democracy.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Brendan O'Neill

I don't who he is at all. But, I would be prepared to wager one shot of Brandy that he's a Tory Eurosceptic.

 

[Famine]

I don't who he is at all. But, I would be prepared to wager one shot of Brandy that he's a Tory Eurosceptic.

He... isn't, but is apparently a "Marxist libertarian"* who opposes gay marriage and efforts to combat racism**.


*He either means "liberal socialist" or he's a troll.
**Which he describes as sops for authoritarianism, which means he's a troll.

 

[Liquid]

It would lead to an inevitable Con/Lib or Lab/Lib coalition each time.

Yep.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Yep.

View attachment 873373

View attachment 873374

These predictions do ignore tactical voting though... people may well not have cast their votes in the same way if they actually counted.

 

[Daz555]

Let's just tick these off as we go along. List will be scratched off as the Tories fail to deliver their lies.

• Get Brexit done in January.
• Negotiate a trade deal with the EU by December 2020.
• Do the above with no border checks in Northern Ireland.
• Negotiate trade deals with around 70 other nations nations including the USA.
• Recruit 50,000 nurses.
  • Dead. Now saying 2029 and no plan to deal with the 18,500 nurses already leaving.
• Recruit 10,000 doctors.
• Recruit 21,000 police
• Build 40 hospitals.
  • Dead. It's now just 6 by 2025.
• Increase school spending by £14bn.
• Increase NHS spending by £34bn.
• Deliver £6.4bn in grants to improve home energy efficiency.
• Keep pensions triple-lock.
• Implement an Aussie style immigration system.
• No increase in taxation for anyone.
• Not sell the NHS to the Americans.

 

[Liquid]

Recruit 21,000 police

20,000 have been cut since 2010 so that's a net gain of just 1,000.

And that's before you factor in that 21,000 new police officers won't have the knowledge, experience, informants nor public relationships that the 20,000 sacked officers had.

 

[Imari]

• Implement an Aussie style immigration system.

Rofl, I just noticed this one. Are they gonna build concentration camps on the Outer Hebrides to put their immigrants in?

 

[Liquid]

Rofl, I just noticed this one. Are they gonna build concentration camps on the Outer Hebrides to put their immigrants in?

There is a grossly overly romanticised idea of the Australian immigration points system.

"Oh, you're from the Canada or Great Britain? Plus ten. Come on in!"
"Ah, not from Canada or Great Britain? Minus twenty. Back where you came from, please."

It's as though people still think it's 1967 and a Gastarbeiter system is the most supreme way to not only control immigration, but to discourage it entirely.

 

[baldgye]

Rofl, I just noticed this one. Are they gonna build concentration camps on the Outer Hebrides to put their immigrants in?

Or just in Scotland

 

[HenrySwanson]

Don't we already have a points based system?

 

[Shaun]

It's as though people still think it's 1967

You've just described our Prime Minister.

 

[Liquid]

Zac Goldsmith loses his seat.
Immediately becomes a life peer, in-line to retain a Cabinet-level position.

We can't even vote them out.

 

[Touring Mars]

Zac Goldsmith loses his seat.
Immediately becomes a life peer, in-line to retain a Cabinet-level position.

We can't even vote them out.

Yes... and Nicky Morgan, who didn't even stand as an MP, is back in her old job and is also now a life peer.

 

[Dennisch]

People need to realise that politicians only serve themselves and their friends. Their main objective is to stay on the government payroll with the absolute minimum amount of work.

 

[Daz555]

People need to realise that politicians only serve themselves and their friends. Their main objective is to stay on the government payroll with the absolute minimum amount of work.

It certainly feels that way when it comes to senior politicians and those in government. For the general Member of Parliament though I think there are some genuine servants of the people who are still there trying improve their communities.

 

[Dennisch]

It certainly feels that way when it comes to senior politicians and those in government. For the general Member of Parliament though I think there are some genuine servants of the people who are still there trying improve their communities.

Give it time, they'll always find a nice sponsor who will guide them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Zac Goldsmith loses his seat.
Immediately becomes a life peer, in-line to retain a Cabinet-level position.

Nicky Morgan too. Didn't stand in this election, retains cabinet seat and gets a peerage. If that's not taking back control of our legislature then I don't know what is.

 

[Dotini]

So the Conservative sweep is comprehensive. What's Labour to do? Dump Corbyn and move towards the center? Resurrect Blair?

 

[Famine]

What's Labour to do? Dump Corbyn and move towards the center? Resurrect Blair?

Corbyn has contested two general elections and lost both. Here's his vote count, vote share, and seat count compared to Blair's three wins from three.

1. Blair (1997) - 13.5m, 43.2%; 418 seats
2. Corbyn (2017) - 12.9m, 40.0%; 262 seats
3. Blair (2001) - 10.8m, 40.7%; 413 seats
4. Corbyn (2019) - 10.3m, 32.1%; 202 seats
5. Blair (2005) - 9.6m, 35.2%; 355 seats

Blair was nowhere near as popular, after 1997 (and it's arguable he was just not less popular than John Major), as everyone recalls. He was just far more effective at playing the game and picking up the easy seats from gerrymandered constituencies. Theresa May scored more votes in 2017 than Blair ever did (13.6m) and ended up with a minority government while Blair had thumping majorities, and Johnson only won 365 seats despite almost cracking 14m.

The Blair election win in 2005 is still the most bizarre thing to happen in a General Election. He had almost the whole country against him for his part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, ignoring UK-wide protests against military intervention mere weeks before, but the Conservatives couldn't capitalise on it (the Lib Dems, staunchly anti-war, picked up its largest vote share ever at that point, its largest number of MPs and its then second largest popular vote, with 5.9m votes preventing the Conservatives from winning). In fact even Blair was surprised, as he'd tried his hardest to scupper the UK's finances with huge spending commitments and the fire sale of gold, so that when the Tories won they'd have to deal with a huge mess and be immensely unpopular, so only last one session. But it didn't happen, and Labour spent three years trying to sell and borrow to cover up the insane spending plans before the global financial crisis hit. We're still in $1.8tn debt today, even though the deficit has now, a decade later, been brought more under control.

 

[baldgye]

So the Conservative sweep is comprehensive. What's Labour to do? Dump Corbyn and move towards the center? Resurrect Blair?

 

[PzR Slim]

We'd have been in a very different situation if they had chosen the right brother.

 

[mustafur]

I don't think it would of mattered what Labour did though, even if they supported A position on Brexit, their base is too split up and was always going to lose the Tories who don't have any real minor party threats.

First past the post favours them greatly.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Labour were undone by their position on Brexit, and people's opinion on Corbyn (which, according to a Labour canvasser friend of a friend, often stemmed from his apparent inability to make a decision on Brexit, once you drilled down). They also had more to do than the Conservatives in terms of persuading the electorate.

Corbyn is now seen as a failure and needs to be replaced in order to help rebrand the party, even if Corbynism isn't.

I don't think they need to do a great deal other than selecting a more palatable leader, personally.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We'd have been in a very different situation if they had chosen the right brother.

"They" did... Ed Milliband's election was the unions' revenge for the Blair years that saw proper Comrade-shouting marxists marginalised in the party. I mean, that union brand of politics is always going to be a sure-fire success, right?

 

[Famine]

First past the post favours them greatly.

Blair's incredibly low, but winning, popular votes in 2001 and 2005 and vast parliamentary majority on both occasions - much larger than Boris's 'landslide' - are intensely inconvenient to that argument.