British Election: peaceful revolution

Real Time Update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Tomorrow we will have a change of government. It's all to play for, for the two main legacy parties. The Lib Dems are stuffed, just look at the Euro elections last year to see that.

Red Ted Milliband wants to take us back to the seventies, (nothing wrong with that, I'm polishing my Doc Martens and dusting down my copy of Funhouse as we type!). Ahh yes the halcyon days of rampant inflation, power cuts, the three day week and wildcat strikes. I can't wait!

Perhaps we can get Dick Emery to resurrect his 'comedy' show as well.

As for the Tories, well what a bunch of tossers. They've moved so far to the left since Blair they should re-name themselves the SDP.

It looks as though Wee Jimmy Crankie of the SNP fancies herself as the power broker in a future government. Nice. 5% of the population deciding what the other 95% can get. True democracy.

That Welsh bird with the tits is quite nice though.

The Greens. They should all be sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Me? I'm voting for the only party that talks anything like common sense. UKIP.

for anyone who is interested - current high and low predictions of seats:

Party	Lo	Seats	Hi	Swing
Conservatives	253	281	310	-25
Labour	238	266	295	8
SNP	44	52	57	46
Liberal Democrats	20	26	32	-31
DUP	7	8	10	0
Plaid Cymru	2	4	6	1
SDLP	1	3	3	0
UKIP	0	1	3	1
Greens	0	1	1	0
Other	7	8	10	0

326 is required for a Majority so no party will make it without Coalition.

UKIP will be lucky to hold onto the seats they currently have and will at most gain 1... and considering they had to withdraw a candidate today for saying he would shoot his Conservative opponent in the head if he ever became Prime Minister (apparently because he wasn't British enough since his parents had only been in the country since the 70's...) I would hardly call them the "party that talks common sense"...

Quote:

---

I would hardly call them the "party that talks common sense"..

---

Considering that the legacy parties have members who have been convicted of arson, terrorism, fraud and paedophilia threatening to shoot a Tory in the head (and miss his brain by 6 feet) is tame in comparison.

:evil:

Well, it's a pity that there's no communist party in the UK. I would probably vote for the conservatives, as they are the only ones that could possibly provide a national leader comparable to Thatcher.

To paraphrase the Iron Lady, they're a weak lot, some of them in the United Kingdom you know. Weak. Feeble.

Shall we begin reenacting a rampant press war or just accuse eachother of being tossers and call it a day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

for anyone who is interested - current high and low predictions of seats:

---

Predicted by who?

The biggest Irony of this whole election is AV - had the Conservatives not crushed the AV vote and we had adopted it, the predictions show they would almost certainly have a crushing Majority :laugh4:

Honestly however I don't see how any Majority can be made - the Conservatives only have the Liberals and the DUP who would support them in a coalition while Labour requires the SNP who everyone is determined to shun...

My predictions is another election within the year...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Shall we begin reenacting a rampant press war or just accuse eachother of being tossers and call it a day?



Predicted by who?

---

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

The biggest Irony of this whole election is AV - had the Conservatives not crushed the AV vote and we had adopted it, the predictions show they would almost certainly have a crushing Majority :laugh4:

Honestly however I don't see how any Majority can be made - the Conservatives only have the Liberals and the DUP who would support them in a coalition while Labour requires the SNP who everyone is determined to shun...

My predictions is another election within the year...

---

Maybe - but the Guardian has a "Tactical Vote" map: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ote-tactically

You'll notice that in both cases outside Scotland they advise you to vote Lib-Dem. If the Lib-Dems and the Cons can form another government they will, because as much as they may not love each other they have managed to work together and neither likes the current version of Labour.

You're right about the AV thing, primarily because of the rise of UK, with AV UKIP basically gets no seats and the vast majority of their votes would get re-directed to the Cons.

Me, I'm praying the Scots have a sudden attack of conscience and accept they SNP pays for everything with money from other parts of the UK, including the poorest parts like North Wales, the North East, and Cornwall.

Just wondering why I can't vote for Farage just because I'm Dutch. The EU, what a farce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Just wondering why I can't vote for Farage just because I'm Dutch. The EU, what a farce.

---

Yes, that you can't vote for the government of the UK is entirely the EU's fault.
I also can't get over the fact that I don't get to vote for the Norwegian queen, stupid EU.

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.

---

errr last time I checked it already was a Hate crime along side antisemitism - the article doesn't really go into details of what Miliband is actually proposing which suggests he is simply trying to drum up the Islamic vote and isn't planning to do anything...

as you say - Politics huh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.

---

Well, if it helps I can tell you that Labour tried this before, under Gordon Brown, though they tried to outlaw all "religious prejudice" so you also wouldn't be able to say flat-earthers are nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

errr last time I checked it already was a Hate crime along side antisemitism - the article doesn't really go into details of what Miliband is actually proposing which suggests he is simply trying to drum up the Islamic vote and isn't planning to do anything...

as you say - Politics huh...

---

Irrc it's not, and anti-Semetism is a race-hate crime as far as I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Just wondering why I can't vote for Farage just because I'm Dutch. The EU, what a farce.

---

You should be rejoicing that you can't.

Down with the EU, empower the nation state!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.

---

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/20...-what-he-means

Nice. Now those rape gangs in Yorkshire and across the rest of the north can kneel easy on their prayer mats.

The main reason I don't like the Labour party is that it is based on hate, spite and envy. I have first hand experience of these types. Many years ago, 1973 to be precise, I met Jenny Lee. She turned up in this huge black roller, clad from top to bottom in Norman Hartnell and dripping in gold. She was cheered to the rafters by all these raggy arsed scousers who could barely afford shoes.

"She's one of us", they cried.

I looked at them, in their threadbare clothes and then at this Baroness, replete with gold bling and fancy car and thought that they were quite mad. She coudn't be any further away from them if she went to live on Pluto.

Don't even get me going about her husband Nye Bevan and that evil twisted little get Manny Shinwell.

More of the same. With all of the time spent talking about UKIP, I thought they would be at least breaking double digit numbers in parliament. What a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

More of the same. With all of the time spent talking about UKIP, I thought they would be at least breaking double digit numbers in parliament. What a joke.

---

UKIP are a victim of the FPTP system - they will get a large amount of the "popular" vote - this doesn't however translate into seats - thank god...

It's hard to gain support to split the EU while everyone's worried about trying to preserve the UK.

Still, it is tempting to put a vote in thier pile, just to put some fear into both the big 3 parties and the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

More of the same. With all of the time spent talking about UKIP, I thought they would be at least breaking double digit numbers in parliament. What a joke.

---

they'll likely get between a tenth and a sixth of the vote, out performing the Lib-Dems by a considerable margin, but this will not translate into seats. What they will actually achieve will be to undercute the Conservative vote, and as the Cons have committed to an in-out Referendum if they win a majority UKIP have become self defeating.

If what they wanted was a referendum then they would have rescued themselves from the election and told all their supporters to vote Tory.

It's never 'self defeating' to vote for what you believe in.

You need to modernize with preferential voting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, that you can't vote for the government of the UK is entirely the EU's fault.
I also can't get over the fact that I don't get to vote for the Norwegian queen, stupid EU.

---

First one must make her electable and thus create paneuropean Rzeczpospolita.

I will be voting Labour purely as a tactical vote against the SNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I will be voting Labour purely as a tactical vote against the SNP.

---

Thats like a choice of being stabbed in the face or stabbed in the crown jewels mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Thats like a choice of being stabbed in the face or stabbed in the crown jewels mate.

---

Indeed it is, but I consider the SNP to be the more immediate threat. Once the nationalists lose their momentum, then I can worry about other things.

Unfortunately in the debate, Nicola Sturgeon was pretty much the winner. I would have voted SNP if they didn't exclude themselves to Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Many years ago, 1973 to be precise, I met Jenny Lee. She turned up in this huge black roller, clad from top to bottom in Norman Hartnell and dripping in gold. She was cheered to the rafters by all these raggy arsed scousers who could barely afford shoes.

"She's one of us", they cried.

I looked at them, in their threadbare clothes and then at this Baroness, replete with gold bling and fancy car and thought that they were quite mad. She coudn't be any further away from them if she went to live on Pluto.

---

You know, if you replace "Jenny Lee" with "Nigel Farage", turning up with his city banker background at the 'local pub to drink a pint with the working class', and replacing "Scousers" with "UKIP Supporters", you have the year 2015 equivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It's never 'self defeating' to vote for what you believe in.

---

No, but if what you believe is that we should have a referendum on the EU you should vote Conservative. On the other hand, if you believe UKIP are a better party for government, I would have to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You need to modernize with preferential voting.

---

Perhaps not:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2015-32594267

"UK election exit poll predicts Conservatives will be largest party in a hung parliament, with 316 seats to Labour's 239. Survey by NOP/Mori for BBC, ITV and Sky"

"More details on the exit poll. It predicts the Liberal Democrats will have just 10 seats - a loss of 47 from 2010. The SNP is predicted to win 58 seats - every constituency bar one in Scotland. UKIP is forecast to have two, as is the Green Party. Plaid Cymru is expected to go up one to four."

Arithmetic favours the Conservatives being able to form a government with the Lib-Dems and the DUP propping them up, interestingly it looks like the Cons are stealing seats from the Lib-Dems and Labour both. If these polls prove to be accurate then it effectively excludes Labour from Government (again) and therefore locks out the SNP. What's troubling is the small number of Lib-Dem seats, that makes a formal Coalition less likely which in turn means less moderation of George Osborne and a less stable government generally.

The other big take away here is that the SNP will basically hold Scotland, which means that if they aren't in government or propping the government up then the Scots will effectively have no control over the direction of the Executive or the Legislative Timetable. In my opinion this shows the danger of having one ideology (Socialism) and one party grip an entire country, by voting SNP after voting to remain in the Union Scots may see themselves more disenfranchised than at any time in the previous 300 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I will be voting Labour purely as a tactical vote against the SNP.

---

A poor tactical choice, as Labour and the SNP will clump together if they can form a majority, further increasing the power of the SNP.

UKIP gained a seat from what I heard, watch out EU, the nationalists are coming for you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

UKIP gained a seat from what I heard, watch out EU, the nationalists are coming for you!

---

Nope - they came second, it was a Labour hold.

I wouldn't mind UKIP stealing conservative seats. Then we will probably end up with a multi-party system which means STV might end up actually being implemented instead of the broken FPTP system.

The Left has triumphed over the Radical Left. I suppose it's the best possible outcome given the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Nope - they came second, it was a Labour hold.

---

What a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I wouldn't mind UKIP stealing conservative seats. Then we will probably end up with a multi-party system which means STV might end up actually being implemented instead of the broken FPTP system.

---

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

UKIP stealing Conservative seats will mean nothing, if you had the SNP stealing Conservative seats or UKIP stealing a lot of Labour seats people might start to ask question but all that's happening here is UKIP is picking up the protest vote in England and the SNP are picking it up in Scotland.

I think you'll find that this election will reflect the public mood, the Conservatives will come out on top but short of a majority because people don't really trust them, but they trust Red Ed and even less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The Left has triumphed over the Radical Left. I suppose it's the best possible outcome given the circumstances.

---

Quite the opposite, the SNP (the closest thing we have to a Radical Left, far Left of Labour) has taken fifty of the fifty-three seats declared in Scotland, with five left to go. Oddly, the Conservatives managed to hold their one Scottish MP.

Edit: the SNP have taken 55 seats with one left to declare - it's hard to see this as good for Scotland as virtually the whole country is now represented by one partythat hold no seats in the wider UK. About the only thing this Bloc can achieve at Westminster is to bring down a government and trigger a new election as they've already said they will have no truck with the Conservatives.

I hope they trigger a new election soonjust so we can avoid talking about the upcoming US election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I hope they trigger a new election soonjust so we can avoid talking about the upcoming US election.

---

Sorry to dissapoint but it looks like, in the end, people were more afraid of the SNP than the Tories. Thus far the Cons have made a net gain of 20 seats, having lost 10, if the Conservatives win 27 of the remaining 44 seats they will have a majority, Labour will be lucky to hit 250 MPs, actually doing worse than last election under Gordon Brown.

Could somebody please explain to me in lay terms why UKIP got only 2 seats when they achieved 12%?
I'm very much unfamiliar with the british election system, and I'd like to know how this works.
Thank you.

Also: quite the prediction fail this time, it seems.

so it looks like the opinion polls were HORRIBLE off...

The Conservatives have already said they will now bring back the Communications bill giving the security serviced leave to spy on everyone - the boundary bill which effectively gives them another 20 seats for the next election - and a EU referendum...

The liberals are utterly destroyed, Labour is weakened and the SNP are now strong but unable to make that matter... and no chance for a Voting reform now either...

not looking forward to the next 5 years

I am if Camaron keeps his word on a referandum about the EU, that thing has got to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

so it looks like the opinion polls were HORRIBLE off...

The Conservatives have already said they will now bring back the Communications bill giving the security serviced leave to spy on everyone - the boundary bill which effectively gives them another 20 seats for the next election - and a EU referendum...

The liberals are utterly destroyed, Labour is weakened and the SNP are now strong but unable to make that matter... and no chance for a Voting reform now either...

not looking forward to the next 5 years

---

Well, a referendum is a good thing, it should put the question to bed - boundary changes are needed because currently Labour seats contain on average several thousand fewer voters - meaning that labour areas - like Scotland - are awarded an unfair number of seats based on population.

As to the communications bill - we'll see, passing that one won't be easy, a lot of Cons will vote against it, so currently passing it will be impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I of the Storm

Could somebody please explain to me in lay terms why UKIP got only 2 seats when they achieved 12%?
I'm very much unfamiliar with the british election system, and I'd like to know how this works.
Thank you.

Also: quite the prediction fail this time, it seems.

---

It helps if you stop thinking about the parties and think about the people. Basically UKIP has a broad low level of support across the UK but they their individual candidates don't actually perform well, either because they aren't very good or because there's such strong feeling against them that all the other voters in the constituency band together and vote for one candidate to keep them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You know, if you replace "Jenny Lee" with "Nigel Farage", turning up with his city banker background at the 'local pub to drink a pint with the working class', and replacing "Scousers" with "UKIP Supporters", you have the year 2015 equivalent.

---

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.

The heads are rolling. Looks like Miliband, Clegg and Farage will all be quitting. This result has been a shock given the polls beforehand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I hope they trigger a new election soonjust so we can avoid talking about the upcoming US election.

---

Nah! Better one more referendum.

I think the tory tactic of scaring voters vis-a-vis a Labour/SNP coalition did the trick. Disappointing for UKIP in a way but they came second in a lot of northern seats and are now the main opposition in the rotten boroughs.

Talking of the north, I see Ed Balls was castrated in Morley, which BTW I can see Morley Church from my attic. So every cloud.....

1. Could someone please summarize what the result will mean for Britain?

2. Can someone explain how 12+% of votes gives so few seats? In Sweden it would have, proportionally, given around 80....




I really don't get British politics... But it doesnt' seem very democratic from my point of view...

I assume/IIRC it's a FPTP per district and the winner gets all the seats for that district. So the UKIP can get 12% of the votes overall, yet lose in all but one or two districts and will then get only one or two seats instead of 12% of the seats while the winners of even the districts where UKIP got 30% or so will get all the seats for that district.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

1. Could someone please summarize what the result will mean for Britain?

2. Can someone explain how 12+% of votes gives so few seats? In Sweden it would have, proportionally, given around 80....




I really don't get British politics... But it doesnt' seem very democratic from my point of view...

---

If I got it right, the number of seats is decided by how well each party did in every electoral department, not by your percentage in the entire United Kingdom.

Consequently, the UKIP won only one seat in East Anglia, while the SNP, present only in Scotland, managed to elect deputies in almost all the Scottish electoral departments, despite getting the one third of UKIP's votes.

It's a rather horrible system, with incredibly undemocratic tendancies. If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I assume/IIRC it's a FPTP per district and the winner gets all the seats for that district. So the UKIP can get 12% of the votes overall, yet lose in all but one or two districts and will then get only one or two seats instead of 12% of the seats while the winners of even the districts where UKIP got 30% or so will get all the seats for that district.

---

Seems like a flawed way to handle democracy :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

If I got it right, the number of seats is decided by how well each party did in every electoral department, not by your percentage in the entire United Kingdom.

Consequently, the UKIP won only one seat in East Anglia, while the SNP, present only in Scotland, managed to elect deputies in almost all the Scottish electoral departments, despite getting the one third of UKIP's votes.

It's a rather horrible system, with incredibly undemocratic tendancies. If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.

---

I wanted to thank your post... But that option wasn't available? Anyone know why? *sorry for offtopic*

I can thank any other post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I assume/IIRC it's a FPTP per district and the winner gets all the seats for that district. So the UKIP can get 12% of the votes overall, yet lose in all but one or two districts and will then get only one or two seats instead of 12% of the seats while the winners of even the districts where UKIP got 30% or so will get all the seats for that district.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

If I got it right, the number of seats is decided by how well each party did in every electoral department, not by your percentage in the entire United Kingdom.

Consequently, the UKIP won only one seat in East Anglia, while the SNP, present only in Scotland, managed to elect deputies in almost all the Scottish electoral departments, despite getting the one third of UKIP's votes.

It's a rather horrible system, with incredibly undemocratic tendancies. If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.

---

Well, first off it's "Constituency" and "Member of Parliament", I make the distinction because (unlike on the continent) we elect ONE person for ONE constituency. Whether you see this as bad for democracy depends on whether you think parties or individuals are more important. The candidate with the most votes in a Constituency is returned as the MP, in most instances that would have avoided the Lib-Dem wipe-out, they should have held on to the seats of their popular ministers, but didn't, and that says that not only are their own voters punishing them but their own (former) party members are punishing the party leadership.

Conversely, FPTP allowed for Ed Balls (widely reviled) to be scalped by everyone but Labour voting against in, in STV that would almost certainly not happen

Another thing to understand is that sometimes vote in protest, not for the party they want in power but against the party in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Seems like a flawed way to handle democracy :rolleyes:

---

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 :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.

---

Lucky you are, we still have Junta at power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Seems like a flawed way to handle democracy :rolleyes:

---

Backwards though it might seem compared to it's rivals like France and Germany, it has, thus far, had greater overall stability and sucess.

British politics has avoided full insurrection at home for four hundred years, it began an empire that dominated the world for a hundred and twenty four years and when the empire ended the relations between the homeland it's former dominions was unusually mild; The lack of bad blood from the fall of a large empire on such a scale has not been seen since the end of the Roman Empire.

I doubt it is an inherent superiority of the british race, or anything like that, but whether by design or merely blind luck we have been doing something right and I think it deserves some investigation to find out what.

Investigation that I should probably not be doing during the end of an essay deadline. Bad Greyblades :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Backwards though it might seem compared to it's rivals like France and Germany, it has, thus far, had greater overall stability and sucess.

---

I doubt that the reason for Britain's political stability has anything to do with the way the Parliament seats are distributed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, first off it's "Constituency" and "Member of Parliament", I make the distinction because (unlike on the continent) we elect ONE person for ONE constituency. Whether you see this as bad for democracy depends on whether you think parties or individuals are more important.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Lucky you are, we still have Junta at power.

---

I thought you were pro-Poroshenko.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

1. Could someone please summarize what the result will mean for Britain?

2. Can someone explain how 12+% of votes gives so few seats? In Sweden it would have, proportionally, given around 80....




I really don't get British politics... But it doesnt' seem very democratic from my point of view...

---

First past the post voting is a winner take all system. Those percentages are of the total national vote tallies, and almost meaningless in practical terms. To get a seat you've got to get the most number of votes in your riding (aka electoral district). So instead of voting for a party line, you vote as much for the guy who's selling it in your locality. Old school Anglo-Saxon based political systems have a very strong "our man/woman" bent to who gets elected. And small upstart parties like the UKIP and Greens have a HUGE disadvantage vs the big guys like Cons or Labour.

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

I find myself wondering if that is a point to our detriment or benefit. I think both us and the USA are close to a sweet spot, of sorts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

I doubt that the reason for Britain's political stability has anything to do with the way the Parliament seats are distributed.

---

And I doubt that most minorities are so thin skinned as to want the english language to be completly gutted so anything even remotely carrying a problematic connotation cannot be used even by accident, but there are still people who hold the opinion that doing so will improve society.

Whether FPTP is a net contributor or detriment to britain's success is still unverifiable and thus a matter of opinion, and as I said; I believe this could do with investigation.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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 :no:

---

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%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.