British Election: peaceful revolution

[Furunculus]

Congrats, Britain. Your system is even less democratic than America's.

i'm quite happy with it.

a couple of observations:

1. Labour and Lib-Dems won’t find it so funny any more when Alex Salmond makes the joke about panda bears and Tory MP’s.

2. So, First Past the Post is a broken system that can no longer deliver its primary stated benefit of majority governments, eh?

3. What is the purpose of the labour party now all the money has gone? Who will take the opportunity and fill the void…

4. Opinion Polls = 285 / Exit polls = 316 / Final results = 331 with 37% of the vote. So, yeah, the ‘shy tory’ is still very much a thing!

[Greyblades]

Britain's political stability came from close proximity to rivals and a lack of forests leading to early adoption of fossil fuels.

Uh, dont you mean success?

I get close proximity to rivals combined with a natural boundary to keep them in check might have fostered stability, but what would the use of fossil fuels contribute?

[Beskar]

Not the same at all and you know it. One pretends to be down with the people, the other one is down with the people. I'll give you a clue. The latter doesn't have an effin' great big black Rolls Royce.

Just an anti-immigratation party when the leaders wife is a immigrant.
Popularist party with no real policies other than saying what would get them elected with the most crafted media image which provokes a bad boy image intentionally.
i can go on...

[Beskar]

many of us in the country agree and were hoping electoral reform would be on the cards if we ended up with a hung parliament - no chance now

I agree and disagree.
Party list is even more undemocratic. In the UK, we vote for the person who represents area. In party list countries, you don't even get that option. You get stuck with cronies and bad apples who always get into power even if they represent no one.
Now, FPTP, is bad due to the winner being a simple majority, taking all even if they only got 30% support. Now switching to STV, it would increase it to over 50%

[Beskar]

Because the most important thing is to oust David Cameron and install Ed Milliband in No.10 backed by Alistair Salmond, yes?

SNP is not a poison party to me, I think the case for Scottish independence is growing and would be good for 'us' and them. Though David would have been better than Ed on the Labour front.

Now, I am hoping for Tim Farron to lead the LibDems, he would make a good PM.

[Greyblades]

I disagree. I do not see the desire for independance as a reason in and of itself to leave, and I dont want to see them go. That a lot of thier grievances are ones I think a lot of the rest of us would agree need dealing with compunds my feeling.

Just an anti-immigratation party when the leaders wife is a immigrant.
Popularist party with no real policies other than saying what would get them elected with the most crafted media image which provokes a bad boy image intentionally.
i can go on...

I would argue the importance of UKIP is not it's conduct, though that is worrying, but it's popularity.

I think the main parties need to take more notice of UKIP, not because Farage is 100% right but because UKIP's success tells us they represents something important; They do something the other parties dont and that thing is important enough to make a lot of people willing to risk voting in the hyper nationalists just to get it addressed.

Fortunately they are still small, they can still be undercut and I hope the referendum does so.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Uh, dont you mean success?

I get close proximity to rivals combined with a natural boundary to keep them in check might have fostered stability, but what would the use of fossil fuels contribute?

Early industrialization allowed the UK to maintain easier control of territories previously considered semi-autonomous and place many territories that were autonomous under British hegemony. The economic boom of the industrial revolution made the idea of staying within the UK an easier concept to swallow since my understanding is that Scotland only unified Crowns with Britain because of financial reasons, (funny how once oil is found on Scottish shores, suddenly there is a referendum on Scottish independence).

Take the example of the US before the Civil War. If it wasn't for the rapid industrialization in the years leading up to the Civil War, it would have been much more difficult to maintain control over the South. Book I am currently reading states that even up until the late 1850s, there was at least one US state (southern, I think) which had not a single railroad line crossing through it. You can't assert independence if it takes your troops weeks to travel a distance that Federal troops cover in days.

[Greyblades]

Early industrialization allowed the UK to maintain easier control of territories previously considered semi-autonomous and place many territories that were autonomous under British hegemony. The economic boom of the industrial revolution made the idea of staying within the UK an easier concept to swallow since my understanding is that Scotland only unified Crowns with Britain because of financial reasons, (funny how once oil is found on Scottish shores, suddenly there is a referendum on Scottish independence).

Take the example of the US before the Civil War. If it wasn't for the rapid industrialization in the years leading up to the Civil War, it would have been much more difficult to maintain control over the South. Book I am currently reading states that even up until the late 1850s, there was at least one US state (southern, I think) which had not a single railroad line crossing through it. You can't assert independence if it takes your troops weeks to travel a distance that Federal troops cover in days.

Fair point, though that leaves the period between our civil war and industrialization. There was was relatively stablility on the isles compared to the mainland nations.

Although now that I think of it, that might have been down to our focus on naval superiority and geography as an island; while rebels would have had to march over the british countryside to get to eachother the British army could just get a relatively faster ride off the Royal navy and head them off. It would also explain why the american revolution was so sucessful for the rebels, the rebellions taking place further away from a coastline would mean less oppertunities for naval transport.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I always focused on parties, not individuals, as it's the ideology that matters, not your personal charisma, in my opinion. After all, the party for which I always vote has taken a rather desicive stance on the issue, since, after the elections, the elected deputies resign, in favour of the ones chosen by the Central Committee.

And you think our system is un-democratic?

For starters most people in the UK don't want ideologically driven parties, they want good government and ideology gets in the way or that. Secondly, the practice of the elected representatives resigning after they are elected is impossible here. In the UK is you want to resign you have to beg the incumbent government to be allowed to go, you are expected to serve your term until the end of the Parliament. Thirdly, our system prevents parties from protecting people they consider important. Ed Balls was the Shadow Chancellor, second most importan politician in the opposition, but Labour couldn't protect him and the public took his scalp.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fair poiont, though that leaves the period between our civil war and industrialization where there were internal stability on the Isles themselves.

Although now that I think of it, that might have been down to our focus on naval superiority and geography as an island; while rebels would have had to march over the british countryside to get to eachother the British army could just get a relatively faster ride off the Royal navy and head them off. It would also explain why the american revolution was so sucessful, the rebellions taking place further away from a coastline would mean less oppertunities for naval transport.

After the civil war, you had the Glorious Revolution in 1680s. Then, beginning in the mid-1700s, you had an agricultural surplus that promoted stability until the industrial revolution which shortly followed. Really, from my brief glance there was about 50 years of political stability, which isn't that long to be of any significance.

[Sarmatian]

And you think our system is un-democratic?

Secondly, the practice of the elected representatives resigning after they are elected is impossible here. In the UK is you want to resign you have to beg the incumbent government to be allowed to go, you are expected to serve your term until the end of the Parliament.

So, you have a system that prevents politicians from willfully giving up power? That's like having a system which prevents alcoholics from giving up drinking.

Let's face it, there's a very low risk of that happening anytime, anywhere.

[Beskar]

That is incorrect, you can resign, but when you resign (or die, or other legitimate reason, etc), there is a by-election, so the people in the area vote the for replacement.

You can decide to 'change sides', as in, where your party allegiance is, if the new party agrees with the move, but you are generally punished heavily in the polls. Only person to successfully 'cross twice' is Winston Churchill.

[Greyblades]

After the civil war, you had the Glorious Revolution in 1680s. Then, beginning in the mid-1700s, you had an agricultural surplus that promoted stability until the industrial revolution which shortly followed. Really, from my brief glance there was about 50 years of political stability, which isn't that long to be of any significance.

Acin we dont count the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for the same reason we dont count the Jacobite rising of 1745, it lasted under a year, it was horrendously one sided and didn't cause enough upheaval to be considered a break in a run of relative internal stability.

Same reason we dont count all those little incursions during our wars when we say we havent been invaded in almost 1000 years, they didnt do enough to be considered worthy of breaking the record.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Acin we dont count the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for the same reason we dont count the Jacobite rising of 1745, it lasted under a year, it was horrendously one sided and didn't cause enough upheaval to be considered a break in a run of relative internal stability.

Same reason we dont count all those little incursions during our wars when we say we havent been invaded in almost 1000 years, they didnt do enough to be considered worthy of breaking the record.

Fair enough. I can't really explain that time period then. I still hold that the only reason your Union has lasted this long is because you got on the steam engine faster than anyone else.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is incorrect, you can resign, but when you resign (or die, or other legitimate reason, etc), there is a by-election, so the people in the area vote the for replacement.

You can decide to 'change sides', as in, where your party allegiance is, if the new party agrees with the move, but you are generally punished heavily in the polls. Only person to successfully 'cross twice' is Winston Churchill.

Well, no, you don't "resign" you take a Crown Office, of which there are two for MP's to be given for this purpose. The point is that you cannot just write a letter of resignation, you have to go to the Chancellor and ask to be let out - though in practice he's not going to refuse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fair enough. I can't really explain that time period then. I still hold that the only reason your Union has lasted this long is because you got on the steam engine faster than anyone else.

That doesn't actually make a lot of sense, because the Industrial Revolution was one of the most miserable times in Britain's history, with it's "Dark Satanic Mills" so what you really need to explain is why there wasn't a revolution from the late 18th Century up until the mid-19th Century. Part of the answer is that the aristocracy willingly legislated away their own monopoly on Parliament, the Second Reform Act was actually passed by the Conservatives in 1867, and that was the Act which enfranchised people living in cities - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

[Pannonian]

Britain's political stability came from close proximity to rivals and a lack of forests leading to early adoption of fossil fuels.

Or perhaps a lack of desire to repeat the political fervour that led to the Civil War and its subsequent results (something reinforced by what went on on the continent in the 18th-19th centuries). There is nothing inherently good about the monarchy. However, our experience of the alternative has not been good, and equally our experience of a morally upright government has led us to prefer one that just leaves the people alone, with as little interference in our everyday lives as possible.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That doesn't actually make a lot of sense, because the Industrial Revolution was one of the most miserable times in Britain's history, with it's "Dark Satanic Mills" so what you really need to explain is why there wasn't a revolution from the late 18th Century up until the mid-19th Century. Part of the answer is that the aristocracy willingly legislated away their own monopoly on Parliament, the Second Reform Act was actually passed by the Conservatives in 1867, and that was the Act which enfranchised people living in cities - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

There wasn't a revolution because despite the Industrial Revolution being miserable, it is better than living off the land for sustenance. The I.R. raised standards of living, I don't think that can be doubted. The Reform Act doesn't really change my views on the I.R. I would say that the I.R. preserved your Union precisely because it raised the stakes between the government and the governed. With a rapidly growing population that now had leisure time to demand political powers, the I.R. forced a more democratic state that operates in harmony today with much more diversity among the population than among those that lived in the 1860s. If the aristocracy had not given reforms in 1867, it would have happened in another 10 or 20 years simply because of the demographics. No one is going to let an entire government to collapse simply because they want to be the only ones calling the show.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or perhaps a lack of desire to repeat the political fervour that led to the Civil War and its subsequent results (something reinforced by what went on on the continent in the 18th-19th centuries). There is nothing inherently good about the monarchy. However, our experience of the alternative has not been good, and equally our experience of a morally upright government has led us to prefer one that just leaves the people alone, with as little interference in our everyday lives as possible.

Hmm, can you elaborate more on what you are trying to say? I find that generalizations of what people "prefer" are not satisfying (for myself at least).

[Husar]

Hmm, can you elaborate more on what you are trying to say? I find that generalizations of what people "prefer" are not satisfying (for myself at least).

Cameras do not interfere with your everyday life unless you have quantum properties.
I'm just guessing though.

[Montmorency]

Part of the answer is that the aristocracy willingly legislated away their own monopoly on Parliament, the Second Reform Act was actually passed by the Conservatives in 1867, and that was the Act which enfranchised people living in cities

It's quite easy to see that as a function of industrialization.

[Sarmatian]

Well, no, you don't "resign" you take a Crown Office, of which there are two for MP's to be given for this purpose. The point is that you cannot just write a letter of resignation, you have to go to the Chancellor and ask to be let out - though in practice he's not going to refuse.

You've got to admit, seeing a politician leave office/vacate a seat without being forced is kinda like seeing a unicorn. That's not a plus for the system.

Anyway, I don't see anything "undemocratic" in FPTP system. I just think it creates basically a two-party system and discourages political diversity.

[Greyblades]

Cameras do not interfere with your everyday life unless you have quantum properties.
I'm just guessing though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm actually just going to say what I want to say. Cheap energy makes people happy, not so cheap energy makes people and nation states very mad. Everything is derived from the above statement.

[Montmorency]

Of course with the caveat that "energy" has usually = "muscle".

[Greyblades]

It is fair to attribute circumstance as a contributing factor to Britain's success, however to attribute Britain's entire performance to favourable conditions is disingenuous to the extreme.
God knows life has shown me even with ideal circumstances humans can still screw things up royal.

[Beskar]

It is fair to attribute circumstance as a contributing factor to Britain's success, however to attribute Britain's entire performance to favourable conditions is disingenuous to the extreme.
God knows life has shown me even with ideal circumstances humans can still screw things up royal.

Britain would have won the war of American independence if having things in your favour was all that was needed.

[Pannonian]

Hmm, can you elaborate more on what you are trying to say? I find that generalizations of what people "prefer" are not satisfying (for myself at least).

The last bout of political warfare we had was the Civil War. As a result of that, we got a government that sought to make the English people morally worthy of their puritanical ideals. We didn't like that, and we invited the deposed prince to be King, on condition that he didn't actually try to do anything. It worked well enough, until the throne passed to his brother who did actually try to do something. We deposed him, and invited someone else over to reign whilst not doing anything. When his line passed, we went the full monty and got someone in who wasn't capable of doing anything. Those are our heads of state. We allow our executive governments to do a bit more, but the same mentality is there. We don't like revolution or anyone who tries to impose their ideology on others. If we're to change, make your argument and let us change at a pace of our choosing, which will be gradual. If you can't make your case, the status quo remains.

[Brenus]

"Same reason we dont count all those little incursions during our wars when we say we havent been invaded in almost 1000 years, they didnt do enough to be considered worthy of breaking the record." That is why history is not only facts but interpretation of fact: The Battle of Lincoln in 1217 is not considered as invasion successfully push back. It is just not considered at all. Or, more recently, 1798 in Ireland, the Battle of Castlebar.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There wasn't a revolution because despite the Industrial Revolution being miserable, it is better than living off the land for sustenance. The I.R. raised standards of living, I don't think that can be doubted. The Reform Act doesn't really change my views on the I.R. I would say that the I.R. preserved your Union precisely because it raised the stakes between the government and the governed. With a rapidly growing population that now had leisure time to demand political powers, the I.R. forced a more democratic state that operates in harmony today with much more diversity among the population than among those that lived in the 1860s. If the aristocracy had not given reforms in 1867, it would have happened in another 10 or 20 years simply because of the demographics. No one is going to let an entire government to collapse simply because they want to be the only ones calling the show.

Take a look at average life expectancies in the 16th and 19th centuries, the drop is quite shocking, massive outbreaks of Cholera, TB and the prevalence of respiratory problems made life miserable in the cities. Life was definitely better before industrialisation than during the 18th and 19th centuries, it did eventually get better but for a hundred years it was pretty terrible for most people. So - you have to explain why there wasn't a revolution during that time given the hundreds of thousands living in misery.

It's quite easy to see that as a function of industrialization.

Partly, but it's notable that the impetus came from the ruling class as much as the enfranchised.

You've got to admit, seeing a politician leave office/vacate a seat without being forced is kinda like seeing a unicorn. That's not a plus for the system.

Pretty common here, Tony Blair did it, a Conservative MP did it (one tipped to become a minister too) for her children and two did it to trigger by-elections last year.

Contrary to what people say democracy in the UK is very healthy, the last major problem was the last major "innovation", which were postal ballots. Before the introduction of Postal Ballots electoral corruption was unheard of here, but people started collecting ballots for other people, altering them, not posting them, pressuring people to vote etc.