British Election: peaceful revolution

[Pannonian]

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.

I didn't get the candidate I voted for. However, my constituency got around 70% turnout, so I'm happy enough. My area got the MP the people voted for.

[Greyblades]

"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.

To expand on this:When we say invasion we think of the Normans, angles, saxons, jutes, vikings and romans. In our eyes the french incursions were so brief and unsuccessful in comparison as to not count. Whether it does is a point of opinion.

Fun fact: the barons war was an intervention in a civil war; a precursor to the glorious revolution in several ways, though decidedly less successful for the invading would be king.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

That is completely wrong, your question is moot. Life expectancy in the early 1800s was better than in the 1600s.

If I may quote Wikipedia, "The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829."

Go ahead and look up the numbers for yourself, child birth deaths dropped dramatically and quality of life did increase. Think about how the bubonic plague killed a third of Europeans before industrialization vs the reoccurrences that happened during industrialization.

My phone won't let me paste the links Wikipedia gives for the statement, so I will just say the statement comes from the article on life expectancy.

[therother]

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.

Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system. The reason the SNP has 56 of 59 Scottish MPs is FPTP. In a proportional system, the SNP would have approximately 30, Labour 14, the Tories 9 and the Liberal Democrats 4.

[Husar]

I'm just glad that Britain is doing fine, next steps are to leave the EU and finally Scottish independence and then England can rule the seas again and stop Putin from achieving a hegemony in Europe. It can really get only better from here.

[Montmorency]

So - you have to explain why there wasn't a revolution during that time given the hundreds of thousands living in misery.

Rioting and revolution are two different things, basically. Rioting is low-level, persistent, and transient, while revolution - well, you're an antiquarian, you should know what I'm getting at.

[therother]

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.

The idea that Labour-leaning seats are smaller than Tory-leaning seats is a cause célèbre in Conservative circles. The average number of electors per UK seat is 70.5k. In Scotland and NI it's around 66k, Wales it's 57.5k.

Of the top 10 biggest seats by the 2010 electoral register, which are all in England, they are split 50/50 by Labour/Tory. The Isle of Wight is the largest UK constituency at 111k voters. Under our current system, which demands a geographical link between the MP and their constituency, it probably has to be either one or two seats, ie either 111k per MP or 55.5k/MP. As the smallest seat in England, Wirral West, has 55k voters, I'd probably suggest it should be split into two constituencies. That would mean 6 of the top ten are currently Labour (the current 11th largest seat, Croydon North, is Labour).

It is true that on the 2010 electoral register figures, the 2015 Tory constituencies are bigger in terms of total number of registered voters than Labour constituencies, 72.6 ±6.3k vs 69.3 ±7.3k. In Scotland, seeing as you mention it (although Labour has but one MP there), the figures are 66.6 ± 9.9k. Almost all of the variability is due to the rural seats in the Highlands (removing them, the number change to 68.2 ± 6.6k).

So it seems at most to be a minor issue with our electoral system, the differences are not huge. I've seen various numbers banded around for how many seats it "costs" the Tories, but to be honest it's very hard to model the outcome with knowing how the new boundaries would be chosen. It's perfectly possible to gerrymander it to benefit either party whilst still equalising the number of voters per seat.

In addition, patterns of voting appear to be different in Conservative-leaning vs Labour-leaning seats. In this election, for instance, in terms of votes per MP, the Tories did better than Labour by 34k/seat to 40k/seat. For comparison, the SNP got a seat per 26k votes, the Liberal Democrats 302k/seat. The DUP are the biggest beneficiaries, needing only 23k/seat. At the other end of the scale are UKIP and the Greens, with 3.8 and 1.1 million votes per seat. Here the differences are indeed huge.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If the U.S. had 70.5k electors per seat, our House of Representatives would be over 4,300 members....jesus.

[Brenus]

"Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system." Yeah, although I am a lefty, so really not happy with the UK result, go to Israel where proportional representation does exist and tell me if it is better. The minorities being able to break alliances apart are in fact the ones in power. We had a similar system in France with the IV Republic and governments were falling one after one. However, agree that the V Republic is now out of breath and a need of a VI is real, to include more democracy and to ban for ever the forfeiture of the European treaty, or the potential of a Trans-Atlantic Trade Treaty where (US) Companies and Businesses will have the upper-hand over democracy an laws of the country.

[Pannonian]

"Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system." Yeah, although I am a lefty, so really not happy with the UK result, go to Israel where proportional representation does exist and tell me if it is better. The minorities being able to break alliances apart are in fact the ones in power. We had a similar system in France with the IV Republic and governments were falling one after one. However, agree that the V Republic is now out of breath and a need of a VI is real, to include more democracy and to ban for ever the forfeiture of the European treaty, or the potential of a Trans-Atlantic Trade Treaty where (US) Companies and Businesses will have the upper-hand over democracy an laws of the country.

As a comparison, our executive system is essentially still as it was in the days of Peel, while the representative system is recognisably that of the days pre-Civil War. I think I prefer British parliamentary democracy to the alternatives.

[Papewaio]

Again use preferential voting, compulsory turn up at poll and a bicaramal parliament that both houses are elected by the people.

Preferential voting makes tactical voting pointless and you just vote for your preferred parties in order. It means you can effectively vote for a minority of your liking and put multiple extremists at the bottom of the ballet. So you could go Lib Dem, Green, Labor, Conservative then extremist group.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system. The reason the SNP has 56 of 59 Scottish MPs is FPTP. In a proportional system, the SNP would have approximately 30, Labour 14, the Tories 9 and the Liberal Democrats 4.

Under a truly proportional system the Tories would supposedly get something like 260 and UKIP 86, so you're get a Tory-UKIP government with a comfortable majority, according to the Electoral Reform Society but under a truly proportional system we might as well have a system like Crander where you have no control at all over who's elected.

I can see the arguments for STV and AV, I don't believe in the argument for enforced voting though because although you can force someone to vote you can't force them to participate in democracy. At the end of the day though I still prefer FPTP because it usually keeps out the nutters, the fact that it failed to do so in Scotland is probably because the people who voted for independence all voted in the election, whilst those who voted against were less likely to (higher turnout in the referendum corresponded to a more resounding rejection of independence).

Scotland is currently motivated by the nationalist and separatists while unionists, particularly Tories, are thin on the ground.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

That's a very English-centric take on what happened. I would say the constant flux was more due to trying to impose a single government over three kingdoms with distinct political traditions and competing factions, as well as the fact that many years of conflict had allowed an almost Bolshevik-style revolution where political power had been seized by an upcoming sort of lower middle-class of artisans and wealthy tenants, at a time when Britain was still to a large degree under the yoke of feudalism. Combine with that the dynamic of urban support (parliament) and rural support (monarchy and the old elite) and you get a recipe for trouble with a lot of intermeshed factors.

[Pannonian]

That's a very English-centric take on what happened. I would say the constant flux was more due to trying to impose a single government over three kingdoms with distinct political traditions and competing factions, as well as the fact that many years of conflict had allowed as almost Bolshevik-style revolution where political power had been seized by an upcoming sort of lower middle-class of artisans and wealthy tenants, at a time when Britain was still to a large degree under the yoke of feudalism. Combine with that the dynamic of urban support (parliament) and rural support (monarchy and the old elite) and you get a recipe for trouble with a lot of intermeshed factors.

I'm not too au fait with the other constituents of the British Revolution. AFAIK the Scots and Americans tended to be more fundie than the English in general, the Americans understandably so (having been motivated enough to cross the ocean twice). My favourite faction of that era are the Levellers, secular proto-democrats.

[Beskar]

Again use preferential voting, compulsory turn up at poll and a bicaramal parliament that both houses are elected by the people.

Preferential voting makes tactical voting pointless and you just vote for your preferred parties in order. It means you can effectively vote for a minority of your liking and put multiple extremists at the bottom of the ballet. So you could go Lib Dem, Green, Labor, Conservative then extremist group.

Scotland and Wales uses STV in their parliament, I believe. So it does have precedence here.just need to make it nation wide.

[Sir Moody]

Scotland and Wales uses STV in their parliament, I believe. So it does have precedence here.just need to make it nation wide.

nope they use AMS (Additional Member System) which is blend of FPTP and PR

they use STV for their local council elections.

so to summarise:

The UK uses FPTP for Westminster Elections.
Wales & Scotland use AMS for their devolved Governments.
Northern Ireland uses STV for their devolved Government.
For local council elections Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland use STV while England uses FPTP.
And we use PLS (Party List system) to elect our European MPs.

What a glorious mess our system is eh?

[Gilrandir]

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.

Austria-Hungary, anyone?

I thought you were pro-Poroshenko.

1. My statement was a sarcasm parodying Russian propaganda cliches.
2. I have no idea why you have such a notion (unless it was sarcasm as well). I'm anti-Yanukovych and pro-Ukrainian, the sum of which doesn't amount to pro-Poroshenko. I didn't vote for him anyway.

[Greyblades]

Austria-Hungary, anyone?

Eeehhh... Kinda? I mean austria-hungary was a level or two down in terms of scale, both in size and worldwide influence, than the British and Roman empires, but I dont know enough to judge how cordial the relations between austria and it's old territories remained after seperation.

I mean how many of them still likes thier old overlord to the degree that the would still tolerate the incorporation of the Austro-Hungarian flag in thier own?

[Fragony]

yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some

[Husar]

yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some

It's called stability and democracy is apparently in the eye of the beholder. Putin is a flawless democrat according to some.

[Gilrandir]

I mean how many of them still likes thier old overlord to the degree that the would still tolerate the incorporation of the Austro-Hungarian flag in thier own?

The Austro-Hungarian flag consisted of (not surprisingly) the Austrian and the Hungarian flags, so some shards of the empire do have the old flag for their new one.



Others don't. And, afaik, it was also a peaceful dissolution. And I believe there is no enmity between, say, Czech republic and Austria and/or Hungary, but there are traditional tensions between Hungary and Romania.

[Greyblades]

Eh, does the Austro Hungarian empire have any any australia, new zealand or fiji analogues? For that matter are there any state or county flags in thier former posessions that retain the empire's emblem, like the canadian provinces, or the state of Hawaii?

yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some

Police arrest 15 in anti-austerity protest in London

Fifteen people, including a 16-year-old boy, were arrested following clashes with police during an anti-austerity protest close to Downing Street.

Officers in riot gear clashed with a "minority" of protesters who threw objects during the rally - which came after the Tory election victory.

Met Police said four police officers and a police staff member were injured.

A police investigation is also under way after graffiti referring to "Tory scum" was daubed on a war memorial.

Met Police said of the 15 arrested, 14 people been bailed pending further enquiries including a full review of CCTV footage and a 24-year-old man remains in custody after being arrested on suspicion of assault on police.

Graffiti was sprayed on the Women's War Memorial, in London's Whitehall, which is yards from where a concert to commemorate the 70th anniversary of VE Day took place on Saturday.

Good to see the young and the dumb have given yet another round of anarchistic vandalism and rabble rousing that will be used to dismiss legitimate concerns.

[Fragony]

If you have ligimimate concerns, and I won't say a thing against them bein legitimate and valid, please do but not with harming others. I don't think it's valid but I don't oppose per sé, but just don't harm anyone who shouldn't be harmed. And that is what they are doing, just destroying and looting, what did the people who it is done to deserve to have to deal with that. It's just mean.

[Greyblades]

Fragony, I was agreeing with you.

[Fragony]

Sorry it's just a rare sight ;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

To all the SNP lovers in England that think they are are serious and intellectual party, you should take a look at the sort of candidate they elect. For example Mhairi Black, a 20 year old ned who says she wants to head-butt Labour councillors (see video) and as for the twitter account, you can see for yourselves (its in spoilers due to the swearing).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, she really is the sort of politician that the Scottish people elected.

[Gilrandir]

Eh, does the Austro Hungarian empire have any any australia, new zealand or fiji analogues? For that matter are there any state or county flags in thier former posessions that retain the empire's emblem, like the canadian provinces, or the state of Hawaii?

Of course not (and I guess you know that). What I was trying to show is the lack of evident antipathy from the former colonies. At least this is my impression.

[Husar]

Now that's a girl who ain't afraid of nothing!

Reminds me a bit of the tough neo-nazi girls though...

edit: As for the former colonies debate, a lot of the eastern countries have their own neo nazi groups now, does that mean they still love us?
Some of the few african colonies we had don't hate us either now though. But I did recently get linked to an article on how the french do not treat their colonies very well: http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/

The last question is an interesting one although I assume a resounding "no!" will follow from our British members.

[Greyblades]

Yes, she really is the sort of politician that the Scottish people elected.

...What are her politics?

[Gilrandir]

edit: As for the former colonies debate, a lot of the eastern countries have their own neo nazi groups now, does that mean they still love us?

They were not your colonies, at least not for so long as Austria-Hungary existed.