Is there a sense that this will be more than a one-term government?
It's a party of 33% (of those who bothered to vote) already.
UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?
- Thread starter Arakhor
- Start date
-
- Tags
- uk politics
It's a party of 33% (of those who bothered to vote) already.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
what comes next is more overt fascism
I think they will have one more term. The Conservative Party still seems very unpopular, with voters and donors.Is there a sense that this will be more than a one-term government?
It's a party of 33% (of those who bothered to vote) already.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
OTOH
From today’s Reformograph:
Reform would now beat Labour to be largest party, mega-poll shows
Pollster predicts Nigel Farage’s party would win 180 seats at a general election, with Labour and Conservatives tied on 165 seats each
Reform UK is now predicted to be the largest party at a general election.
A major new poll by More in Common suggests Nigel Farage’s party would take more than 150 seats from Labour and win 180 seats. Labour and the Conservatives would be tied on 165 seats each.
The projected figures mean that all three parties would fall well short of an overall majority in the Commons.
It comes after a surge in Reform’s popularity since the general election, with the party now leading both Labour and the Tories in an average of the opinion polls.
Mr Farage hopes that this will translate into success at the ballot box at local elections in 10 days’ time amid separate predictions it will be the largest party on eight county councils.
The More in Common mega-poll uses the Multi-Level Regression and Poststratification method to predict which seats will go to which party.
This method has successfully forecast several recent general elections in the UK, as well as contests in Australia and Spain.
Labour is projected to lose 153 seats to Reform, 64 to the Conservatives, 23 to the SNP and five to independent candidates.
The nine Cabinet ministers who would lose their seats to Mr Farage’s party include Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, and Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, would also lose their constituencies of Rawmarsh and Conisbrough and Wigan.
Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is projected to lose his seat to an independent candidate in Ilford North.
www.telegraph.co.uk
From today’s Reformograph:
Reform would now beat Labour to be largest party, mega-poll shows
Pollster predicts Nigel Farage’s party would win 180 seats at a general election, with Labour and Conservatives tied on 165 seats each
Reform UK is now predicted to be the largest party at a general election.
A major new poll by More in Common suggests Nigel Farage’s party would take more than 150 seats from Labour and win 180 seats. Labour and the Conservatives would be tied on 165 seats each.
The projected figures mean that all three parties would fall well short of an overall majority in the Commons.
It comes after a surge in Reform’s popularity since the general election, with the party now leading both Labour and the Tories in an average of the opinion polls.
Mr Farage hopes that this will translate into success at the ballot box at local elections in 10 days’ time amid separate predictions it will be the largest party on eight county councils.
The More in Common mega-poll uses the Multi-Level Regression and Poststratification method to predict which seats will go to which party.
This method has successfully forecast several recent general elections in the UK, as well as contests in Australia and Spain.
Labour is projected to lose 153 seats to Reform, 64 to the Conservatives, 23 to the SNP and five to independent candidates.
The nine Cabinet ministers who would lose their seats to Mr Farage’s party include Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, and Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, would also lose their constituencies of Rawmarsh and Conisbrough and Wigan.
Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is projected to lose his seat to an independent candidate in Ilford North.
Reform would now beat Labour to be largest party, mega-poll shows
Pollster predicts Nigel Farage’s party would win 180 seats at a general election, with Labour and Conservatives tied on 165 seats each
www.telegraph.co.uk
Not much of a surprise as Britain must have the least democratic electoral system in Europe.
Can't think of another country where you'd have a massive majority (or any majority) in parliament, by only getting 1/3 of the vote.
Likewise for getting 14/100 of the vote => 7/1000 of parliament seats.
Can't think of another country where you'd have a massive majority (or any majority) in parliament, by only getting 1/3 of the vote.
Likewise for getting 14/100 of the vote => 7/1000 of parliament seats.
Last edited:
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Some families 'feel unsafe' after group puts up flags on lampposts
Some families in a new mixed-use social housing development in Lisburn have said they feel intimidated after a group of men placed flags on lampposts.The group was wearing dark clothes and hoods and was seen erecting the Union flags on Saturday evening in Altona Drive and Altona Gardens.
One man said he was told if anyone removed the flags, "their house will be burnt".
Police said they would engage with "local community representatives and partner agencies around any complaints about flags".
It comes just weeks after some residents were sent leaflets claiming to be from a loyalist paramilitary organisation.
Video footage, seen by BBC News NI, appears to show four men with a ladder erecting flags in the area.
Conor Batchelor said he confronted the men about the displays on lampposts.
"They said anyone that touches the flags, their house will be burnt. So now we're living in fear," he said.
The 30-year-old, whose former partner and their two children live in the area, said they want to live in "peace and harmony with other religions, other cultures".
He said it should be a "friendly and welcoming" environment.
"We're just really disheartened with it all," he added.
Mr Batchelor described the new housing development as a "mixed area".
He some people may be supportive of the flags, but he said they should be placed "on their property".
"Not on public lamp-posts or outside people's houses that don't want the flags," he added.
The £16m mixed-use development was launched last year.
Carol Carey, who lives in the area with her four children, said she no longer feels safe.
"I did feel sick to my stomach. I don't want this for my kids," she added.
She said she was told by police "there is nothing we can do" because they are not paramilitary flags.
"The people on this street are already afraid because they have had the letters," she added.
Last month, some residents received leaflets through the letterboxes of their homes claiming to be from a loyalist paramilitary organisation.
The leaflets had a UFF (Ulster Freedom Fighters) emblem and text which warned that "anyone caught removing loyalist flags from lampposts will be dealt with".
They also read: "This is loyalist Lisburn, not republican west Belfast."
The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) said officers in Lisburn were aware of the leaflets and they were still being investigated.
A PSNI spokeswoman added: "Police received a report on Saturday 19 April about flags that had been erected in the area of Altona Drive, Lisburn.
"Every case reported to police will be considered on an individual basis and, where offences have been committed they will be dealt with.
"Officers continue to engage with local community representatives and partner agencies around any complaints about flags."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm250g680gvo
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
First past the post has its issues (as does proportional, they're both deeply flawed systems of representative democracy), but calling it the "least democratic system in Europe" shows a firm absence of seriousness.
Assuming you left the electoral in "least democratic electoral system" out without meaning to, I am willing to entertain your claim, as long as you provide an example of another european country where a party has absolute majority of two thirds of parliament when it got 1/3 of the vote. Or of a party that got 1/20 the parliamentary seats it had of the vote.
In a proportional system, clearly it is impossible to get this.
In a proportional system, clearly it is impossible to get this.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I'll grant you that I had somehow missed "electoral" in your post. Consier the comment about "worst in Europe" being unserious withdrawn.
As to the rest, the purpose of a representative democracy is for the representatives to represent people. This representation can (and should) operate at two levels: national representation (ie, the overall sum of representatives should represent the overall will of the nation) AND local representation (each representative is appointed by a specific subdivision of the nation, geographic or otherwise, to ensure their specific (local, usually) interest are heard at the national level). Miss either of those part, and what you have is imperfect representation. Perhaps in smaller countries (let alone single cities or small regions) the difference between local and national representation is small enough not to matter, but the larger the country grow (geographically or demographically), the more acute the distinction becomes.
FPTP is notoriously bad at delivering the former. Geographic repartition of the vote counts for almost as much as who voted, and a small diffeernce in voting totals between two parties can become a huge different in seats. But every constituency appoint its own representative based on the person with the most vote in that locality. Proportional flips the script around: The repartition of seats is far more faithful to actual expressed votes nationally - but there is very limited (or,often, no) connection between any specific constituency and representative ; even if the list connect specific representative to specific constituencies, they won't have been chosen by the people of that constituency to represent them.
Hybrid systems where the legislature is divided between local represetnatives and proportional ones attempt to do both thing, but in practice fall firmly into the "Master of None" territory, being that they are worse at local representation than FPTP (because representative tend to have much larger constituency, and cannot be as in tune with local interests), and worse at representing popular vote than proportional (because the local representative skew the total vote).
Advanced single-constituency systems (Run-off elections, ranked votes) are in effect more advanced forms of FPTP which attempt to attenuate electoral distortion against the more popular party, but generally does very poorly at representing smaller parties (arguably, even worse than FPTP as the more central traditional party are more likely to be second choice/fall-back votes).
A hybrid bicameral system which has one proportional and one local chamber would, in theory, be one approach to do this, but sadly most bicameral systems in place already have other uses for their second chambers. Otherwise, to properly deliver local representation AND proportional representation, we,re looking at very complex system that run head-first into the other great issue of electoral systems: complexity chase voters away.
As to the rest, the purpose of a representative democracy is for the representatives to represent people. This representation can (and should) operate at two levels: national representation (ie, the overall sum of representatives should represent the overall will of the nation) AND local representation (each representative is appointed by a specific subdivision of the nation, geographic or otherwise, to ensure their specific (local, usually) interest are heard at the national level). Miss either of those part, and what you have is imperfect representation. Perhaps in smaller countries (let alone single cities or small regions) the difference between local and national representation is small enough not to matter, but the larger the country grow (geographically or demographically), the more acute the distinction becomes.
FPTP is notoriously bad at delivering the former. Geographic repartition of the vote counts for almost as much as who voted, and a small diffeernce in voting totals between two parties can become a huge different in seats. But every constituency appoint its own representative based on the person with the most vote in that locality. Proportional flips the script around: The repartition of seats is far more faithful to actual expressed votes nationally - but there is very limited (or,often, no) connection between any specific constituency and representative ; even if the list connect specific representative to specific constituencies, they won't have been chosen by the people of that constituency to represent them.
Hybrid systems where the legislature is divided between local represetnatives and proportional ones attempt to do both thing, but in practice fall firmly into the "Master of None" territory, being that they are worse at local representation than FPTP (because representative tend to have much larger constituency, and cannot be as in tune with local interests), and worse at representing popular vote than proportional (because the local representative skew the total vote).
Advanced single-constituency systems (Run-off elections, ranked votes) are in effect more advanced forms of FPTP which attempt to attenuate electoral distortion against the more popular party, but generally does very poorly at representing smaller parties (arguably, even worse than FPTP as the more central traditional party are more likely to be second choice/fall-back votes).
A hybrid bicameral system which has one proportional and one local chamber would, in theory, be one approach to do this, but sadly most bicameral systems in place already have other uses for their second chambers. Otherwise, to properly deliver local representation AND proportional representation, we,re looking at very complex system that run head-first into the other great issue of electoral systems: complexity chase voters away.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The term FPTP is insulting and derogatory as it implies that locals electing a candidate is like a horse race.
In my view top down national political parties are a conspiracy against local representation.
And there is no moral reason why a system should be fair to conspiracies.
In my view top down national political parties are a conspiracy against local representation.
And there is no moral reason why a system should be fair to conspiracies.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Because it's not particularly abnormal for a single-constituency system, whose goal is not to arrive at some national proportional representation, but to ensure local representation. Every constituency got to elect their representative, in each riding the representative who had the most vote was elected, and the seats shook up this way. In a situation where one party has a 10-point lead on any other party, and there is a plethora of smaller parties (meaning the local vote is divided, advantaging whichever party is most popular), I would expect the lead party to walk away with a strong majority. Especially if the previously in power party is experiencing a total collapse of its votes.
Yes, it's a system that's harsh for smaller party that don't have a strong regional base, because getting 10% of the national vote spread equally across the entire nation, and it's a system that benefits smaller party that DO have a strong regional base, because concentrating the same 10% in one quarter of all constituencies (and having nothing in the rest) will usually get you most of those constituencies. Which is exactly what the system is designed to do, because it's designed for regional representation.
Ideal? Hardly. Monstrous? No more so than any of our other flawed system. There are democratic considerations beside proportionality. It's not a crime to prioritize them.
Last edited:
What about being governed by those who only 33% of the voters wanted as their government? And giving them a majority of 2/3 of the parliament! That's no control over who governs you, which seems to not be an issue with you for some reason or be somehow in equilibrium with a glorified local representative (and while many of those may also be a minority vote and just 'first past the post').
Anyway, as it's not as if the electoral system will change now, I suppose the matter shouldn't occupy the thread more.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
In a proportional system, the government would instead go to a coalition of parties, likely led by the very same party who got 33% of the votes, who would still hold the lion share of actual government power - while being beholden to fringe factions they need to form their coalition. Hardly better
Snowygerry
Deity
Old Scottish nobility rejects American parvenu addressing Westminster :
news.stv.tv
And rightly so, bloody colonials should know their place, maybe the Commons, certainly not the Lords
Scottish Lord in bid to block Donald Trump from addressing Parliament
Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock, a former MP and MSP, has suggested that allowing Trump to address Westminster would be 'inappropriate'.
news.stv.tv
And rightly so, bloody colonials should know their place, maybe the Commons, certainly not the Lords
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Ghoulish government, absolutely awful for lgbtq people
EnglishEdward
Deity
Are there any non ghoulish governments that spring to mind ?
Cloud_Strife
Deity
No, because they all suck wrt trans people and you know this
EnglishEdward
Deity
Well now I might equally well say that all water is wet.
Never mind that provides scope for you to define a transtopia.
Never mind that provides scope for you to define a transtopia.
