Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Recommended Posts

A couple questions for the Brits as it seems an interesting result.

 

If the SNP remains strong for the next decade or so does the electoral math provide any possibility of Labour winning an outright majority in the south without an SNP coalition?

 

Is the negative SNP nationalist / separatist perception in the south enough that any national coalition including them would be looked upon as anathema by those in the south? (I'm talking perceptions here and not official party platform which is just PR BS)

 

Just curious how normal/thoughtful Brits view this result as opposed to pundits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's all over. Tories are in power again.  

It's backwards retarded. SNP get 50+ seats but only something like 1.5 million votes. UKIP got 1 seat but damn near 4 million votes. Even the Lib Dems got 8 seats but only 2.5 million votes. It's ment

It is difficult to know. The Tories have plans to redraw the constituency boundaries and reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Until we see where these changes will take place it is impossible to

If the SNP remains strong for the next decade or so does the electoral math provide any possibility of Labour winning an outright majority in the south without an SNP coalition?

It certainly makes it a lot more difficult, typically Labour have relied quite heavily on their Scottish support.

 

Is the negative SNP nationalist / separatist perception in the south enough that any national coalition including them would be looked upon as anathema by those in the south? (I'm talking perceptions here and not official party platform which is just PR BS)

Personally I'm of the opinion that the unexpected majority victory for the Conservatives is largely due to people not wanting a coalition government or any government that would involve making deals with a nationalist party, one that ultimately would like to break up the UK. That and also the fact that Ed Milliband is an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple questions for the Brits as it seems an interesting result.

 

If the SNP remains strong for the next decade or so does the electoral math provide any possibility of Labour winning an outright majority in the south without an SNP coalition?

 

It is difficult to know. The Tories have plans to redraw the constituency boundaries and reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Until we see where these changes will take place it is impossible to predict anything.

 

One thing that will be interesting is the Scottish Parliament Election next year. Will the SNP do as well or even better. Will the new MPs make a fool of themselves and cost the SNP votes. Can Labour get back on track over the next 12 months.

I think Labour can challenge in Scotland next year but they need to get rid of Jim Murphy. It doesnt matter how good a Labour person he is a large percentage of the electorate (for example the 45% that voted for independence) dont like him and this holds Labour back.

Is the negative SNP nationalist / separatist perception in the south enough that any national coalition including them would be looked upon as anathema by those in the south? (I'm talking perceptions here and not official party platform which is just PR BS)

 

Just curious how normal/thoughtful Brits view this result as opposed to pundits.

It does seem that many people in England did have an issue with the idea of a party that wishes to split up the UK being in power in the UK. My guess is this is what made a lot of people vote Tory. In fact the Tories trotted this out on a regular basis even having campaign posters with Ed Miliband in the pocket of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond.

2e3f4b0f-f8db-4aae-8e61-42affc16f61a-bes

Sturgeon_Pocket_1200x6283-620x324.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have probably voted for my local Labour candidate, I went to school with her, she is a good person and I believe would have been a good representative for my local constituancy. Ultimately though I couldn't bring myself to vote for Ed Miliband or a government that would end up being propped up by a nationalist party. Perhaps if he had resigned a week earlier it may have all been different!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels weird to me that a party that gets 36,5% of the votes has an absolute majority and a party that has ~6% of the votes has 8x as much seats as a party that has ~8% of the votes and another party that has ~12,5% of the votes get almost no votes

 

Though the fragmentated dutch political system isn't also perfect ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have probably voted for my local Labour candidate, I went to school with her, she is a good person and I believe would have been a good representative for my local constituancy. Ultimately though I couldn't bring myself to vote for Ed Miliband or a government that would end up being propped up by a nationalist party. Perhaps if he had resigned a week earlier it may have all been different!

I didnt have an issue with Ed Miliband, I thought he was the most trustworthy of the main party leaders. I thought he was passionate and really cared about what happens to people across all of the country.

David Cameron could not care less about us Scots. His tactic of using the scare of the SNP to win votes in England knowing that it would cost Labour in Scotland worked but it was nasty politics. He didnt try to talk up his party on scaremonger about the SNP.

Nick Clegg was always in trouble for doing a deal with the Tories. Many Lib Dem voters voted for them in 2010 to keep the Tories out and it backfired and they were always going to pay the price for that and I got the sense he know it.

As for the SNP, seeing what is happening in Scotland with the NHS and Education there is no way I want them in power. The NHS is performing worse now in Scotland than it is in England. Reading levels of 8 and 9 year olds have falling 5% since 2012 and levels in maths have also falling over the same time. The SNP always blame everything on the Tories not giving them enough money but never take responsibility for their policies.

The less said about Nigel Farage and UKIP the better.

One last thing that has really annoyed me over the past year or so is the obsession with renewal cost of Trident. Those that are anti Trident use the £100 Billion all the time but with no explanation of the figure. This figure is the total cost of the subs warheads and operation costs over 40 years. This include repairs and maintenance. I have never understood why nobody ever challenges this when it is brought up. In no other area of expenditure do parties ever talk about the costs over the lifetime of the item.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels weird to me that a party that gets 36,5% of the votes has an absolute majority and a party that has ~6% of the votes has 8x as much seats as a party that has ~8% of the votes and another party that has ~12,5% of the votes get almost no votes

 

Though the fragmentated dutch political system isn't also perfect ;)

 

It's backwards retarded. SNP get 50+ seats but only something like 1.5 million votes. UKIP got 1 seat but damn near 4 million votes. Even the Lib Dems got 8 seats but only 2.5 million votes. It's mental.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's backwards retarded. SNP get 50+ seats but only something like 1.5 million votes. UKIP got 1 seat but damn near 4 million votes. Even the Lib Dems got 8 seats but only 2.5 million votes. It's mental.

I agree, the current system is deeply flawed, but how do you fix it? Proportional Representation would lead to weak governments with no party with any clear majority to pass new legislation etc...

I think redefining seats is a step in the right direction but seats need to closely match population for it to work. In a sparsely populated regions like Scotland this could lead to MPs representing vast areas and perhaps not giving smaller communities the attention they need. A difficult problem to fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the current system is deeply flawed, but how do you fix it? Proportional Representation would lead to weak governments with no party with any clear majority to pass new legislation etc...

I think redefining seats is a step in the right direction but seats need to closely match population for it to work. In a sparsely populated regions like Scotland this could lead to MPs representing vast areas and perhaps not giving smaller communities the attention they need. A difficult problem to fix.

 

I'd suggest redefining governments entirely. People vote for participants, not for parties.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a step in the right direction would be a mixture of first past the post and PR. It is what we use in Scotland for Holyrood. Well it is not perfect it does give a better representation. Perhaps having 500 first past the post seats, with larger constituencies and then split the country into 30 regions who elect 5 MPs via PR. The system uses some strange calculation where the number of votes you get from first past the post reduces the PR vote you get to allow smaller parties to get more seats.

Well this would most likely lead to a hung parliament every time, that is not always a bad idea as long as parties set out before hand who they would do deals with and what sort of deals it would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have probably voted for my local Labour candidate, I went to school with her, she is a good person and I believe would have been a good representative for my local constituancy. Ultimately though I couldn't bring myself to vote for Ed Miliband or a government that would end up being propped up by a nationalist party. Perhaps if he had resigned a week earlier it may have all been different!

Now there is a wonderful example of one of the worst aspects of Parliamentary Democracy.

The expectation that local representatives toe the party line really bites.

There is order and stability with "party" but at the cost of truly representing local concerns and choosing the individual you feel best able to represent those concerns at a higher government level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the current system is deeply flawed, but how do you fix it? Proportional Representation would lead to weak governments with no party with any clear majority to pass new legislation etc...

I think redefining seats is a step in the right direction but seats need to closely match population for it to work. In a sparsely populated regions like Scotland this could lead to MPs representing vast areas and perhaps not giving smaller communities the attention they need. A difficult problem to fix.

Incorrect - PR would result in more minority governments and coalitions, yes. But that is not synonymous with weak government, just a different kind of government, one less dominated by a two-party structure. Which naturally is not something that parties who enjoy the disproportionate parliamentary representation of FPTP want to give us.

 

Coalitions and alliances of smaller parties are actually supposed to be the status quo of our political system. They do not lead to 'weak' government at all. That is a myth perpetrated by a near 70 year period of loaded parliaments and has regrettably been parroted so often that people have just come to assume it's true.

 

Minority governments instead lead to negotiation and compromise, which results in governance that better represents the interests of the entire electorate. When a country receives them long term they result in strong, impartial, even politics that are based more on individual policies and less on party image and doctrine.

 

Majority governments should be a freak occurrence that we should fear and look to prevent as much as possible, as they lead to large numbers of parliamentary representatives being rendered effectively powerless by a block of MPs who will be acting purely in their own interests and nobody else's.

 

I actually think that PR is only a partial solution - regardless of seats won via PR/FPTP/AV/Whatever, I believe that there needs to be further reform. Politics is increasingly nationalised and regions are increasingly marginalised anyway, so I think perhaps we need to devolve local politics from national. Maybe do away with the House of Lords and have a lower house based on FPTP for regional matters and an upper house based on PR, where the cabinet, PM and national governance reside.

 

But none of this will ever happen as long as we continue to vote in majority parties that have a vested interest in allowing a broken and disproportionate FPTP system to endure. And anyone who supports such a clearly unfair system because of the 'stability' and 'weak government' myths really needs to grow a pair and remind themselves what democracy is actually supposed to be about.

 

As it stands, we are going to have a government that 63% of us voted against making decisions against our interests completely unopposed in any meaningful sense for five whole years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make me King. Problem solved.

But seriously, the emergence of parties with strictly regional seats of power has tended to be a bad sign.

It seems like the natural response would be to form a centrist "Scottish Unionist Party" which would not necessarily be aligned with Labor/Tories/Liberals (but would be a viable coalition partner for any of them, unlike the SNP). Assuming pro-Union Scots flocked to it, it would presumably win a majority of Scottish seats, and relegate the SNP to fringe status with single-digit MPs.

That would effectively make Labor and the Conservatives English (rather than British) parties though.

Which, looking at the map of this election's results, is already kind of the case in practice...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make me King. Problem solved.

But seriously, the emergence of parties with strictly regional seats of power has tended to be a bad sign.

It seems like the natural response would be to form a centrist "Scottish Unionist Party" which would not necessarily be aligned with Labor/Tories/Liberals (but would be a viable coalition partner for any of them, unlike the SNP). Assuming pro-Union Scots flocked to it, it would presumably win a majority of Scottish seats, and relegate the SNP to fringe status with single-digit MPs.

That would effectively make Labor and the Conservatives English (rather than British) parties though.

Which, looking at the map of this election's results, is already kind of the case in practice...

A Scottish Unionist Party is unlikely to work. Labour and the Tories could never come together for any long term. The Lib Dems could work with either if they were not so toxic just now. What could work though is the Scottish versions of the 3 unionist parties could run completely separate from their English ones. You get situations where the unionist parties are talking about new policies that dont do much for Scotland (or Wales either) but the Scottish members are left tying to defend the policy. Scottish Labour has its own leader but ultimately they answer to the leader of the whole party, being separate could help to counter nationalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all over. Tories are in power again.

 

doom_paul_1.png

 

This was the feeling in work today. We at the Citizen's Advice certainly will have more work these next 5 years. Especially our benefit caseworkers.

It's backwards retarded. SNP get 50+ seats but only something like 1.5 million votes. UKIP got 1 seat but damn near 4 million votes. Even the Lib Dems got 8 seats but only 2.5 million votes. It's mental.

 

SNP got 1.5 million votes, which is 4.7% of the votes. For them to have earned 56 seats from that percentage of votes is beyond me.

The system is FUBARED, but sadly, it will not change for the foreseeable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget the Lib Dem and UKIP votes are spread across almost all of the 650 seats, the SNP only stand in 59 seats. National share of the vote doesnt take that into account. If you only look at Scotland, the Lib Dems got 7.5%, UKIP 1.6% and the SNP 50%. Winning 56 out of 59 seats with 50% still sucks but it explains the differences.

The 7.5% that the Lib Dems got in Scotland gave them 1 seat where as Labour got 24.3% and still only got 1 seat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stuff.

I don't completely disagree, I do wonder though that would radical ideas, for example gay marriage, get through a weak and divided PR government? Sometimes compromise and negotiation isn't always best and actually what is needed is strong leadership.

Belechannas for King!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting analysis of Labor's demise in Scotland here:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/how-scottish-labour-came-to-be-routed-in-the-general-election.125566758

This certainly makes some sense:

[P]erhaps most critical of all, Labour committed the ultimate betrayal in the eyes of many loyalists by standing shoulder to shoulder with the Conservatives in the No campaign. Quite simply, this was a monumental error of judgment that inflicted grievous electoral harm on Labour this week. Labour seemed to have forgotten that Conservatism remained a toxic brand in Scotland, especially among left-leaning voters. As well as committing themselves alongside the Tories, Labour agreed entirely with the stance of George Osborne not to share sterling with an independent Scotland.

But he doesn't explain what they really could have done differently without jeopardizing their 200-odd seats in England.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just dont get the argument that Labour betrayed people by siding with the Tories. They are both Unionist parties that didnt want Scotland to be independent. What were they meant to do, run a separate campaign from the Tories on all the same arguments.

People always complain that political parties just disagree for the sake of it and that for the benefit of the country they should work together on common goals. Yet on the rare occasion that they do people accuse them of betrayal.

I would also argue that what has happened to Labour in Scotland goes back further then the independence referendum. In fact the SNP have been in power in Holyrood since 2007, first as a minority government and since 2011 a majority government. Labour has had a series of poor leaders in Scotland and suffer from interference from the party in Westminster. Add to that the current leader Jim Murphy is disliked by a large percentage of people in Scotland, the problems are more deep rooted than just a hangover from the independence referendum.

Lastly all the talk from the Tories about the SNP controlling a Labour government and this would be bad for the country and unfair as the majority of people couldnt vote for them may have worked in England but all it did was encourage people to vote SNP in Scotland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly all the talk from the Tories about the SNP controlling a Labour government and this would be bad for the country and unfair as the majority of people couldnt vote for them may have worked in England but all it did was encourage people to vote SNP in Scotland.

Which ultimately also worked in the tories favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which ultimately also worked in the tories favour.

In the end the result in Scotland had no outcome on the over all result. Even if Labour had won all the seats in Scotland the Tories would still have a majority. It was the idea of a minority Labour government backed by the SNP that gave the Tories the win.

Now we will see how long before the SNP start calling for another referendum. Alex Salmond has said today that the result is a steeping stone to another referendum and that he thinks it will happen is his lifetime. I cant see it happening in the next few years as we have the EU referendum to come first. My guess is the SNP will want it in 2018/2019 before the next Genreal Election

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be told they're not getting one every 6-7 years until they get the result they want just because they want one.

Alex Salmond said before the vote it was a once in a generation referendum

Nicola Sturgeon said it was a once in a lifetime referendum.

Now Alex Salmond says lasts weeks general election result is a stepping stone to another referendum and Sturgeon wont rule out putting another referendum into her manifesto for 2016 Scottish elections. Neither of them can be trusted on this, if they get their way well will get as many referendums as it takes for a yes vote, or as it is known a neverendum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...