General British politics discussion thread

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Javid sits for a Tory rotten borough. The voters have in reality no say in who represents them. The MP for Bromsgrove is basically chosen by the Selection Committee of the Bromsgrove Conservative Association; everything after that is a formality. If the members of the Selection Committee do not object to Javid filling his idle hours in this way, it is irrelevant how the voters feel about it.

Are the people of Bromsgrove not permitted from voting for labour or liberal, or tuning an independent candidate?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

MPs having other sources of earnings is extremely common, on both sides of the house. There are more than a few MPs for whom the MP salary is not even their main income. For obvious reasons, there will be no appetite in parliament to legislate to ban this practice.

The political theory is that it's a matter for the voters if they want to elect an MP who has a second job, or who holds himself open to taking one. Legislation restricting who may be elected to, or serve in, parliament is obviously politically sensitive, and the general principle is that there should be as few barriers as possible.

It really depends on whether the "second job" results in a conflict of interests, the excessive pruning of the Railway network in the 1960s being a classic example of a vested interest clouding some of the decision making as several MPs had interests in road construction companies. The fallout is still being felt today with the HS2 fiasco which is replacing a line that should never have been shut in the first place.

Just how often do MPs put their own business interests before their political/constituents interests, probably far more often that they should.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

Are the people of Bromsgrove not permitted from voting for labour or liberal, or tuning an independent candidate?

No, they can do that, butg the system is set up to minimise the effectiveness of doing it. There's a widespread perception that voting for a candidate who, realistically, cannot win is a "wasted vote". (Though, to be fair, voting for a candidate who will inevitably win regardless of how you vote is just as pointless.)

What they cannot do is vote for a Tory candiate who isn't Savid Javid, or vote for a Tory candidate who will represent them full time. No such option will appear on the ballot paper, because the Bromsgrove Conservative Association has decided that it will not.

The whole point of the UK electoral system is to minimise the choice offered to the voter, and to maximise the control exercised by the party.

ArmaniJeanss

Aegir wrote: »

Are the people of Bromsgrove not permitted from voting for labour or liberal, or tuning an independent candidate?

Obviously they are.
But unfortunately what happens is if any capable Labour or Liberal politician happens to be from Bromsgrove they quickly realise the futility of fighting for the seat there and they stand elsewhere. With limited resources for all parties, it makes sense to throw those resources (people and money) at winnable seats.

The same happens to the Conservatives, there's little or no point in putting the best candidates and canvassers into say Merseyside so they just don't bother and concentrate on what is winnable and what needs defending.

So we end up with a self-perpetuating thing where no-one really fights for ~100 seats because they are safe, and they remain safe because no-one else tries to win them.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Obviously they are.
But unfortunately what happens is if any capable Labour or Liberal politician happens to be from Bromsgrove they quickly realise the futility of fighting for the seat there and they stand elsewhere. With limited resources for all parties, it makes sense to throw those resources (people and money) at winnable seats.

The same happens to the Conservatives, there's little or no point in putting the best candidates and canvassers into say Merseyside so they just don't bother and concentrate on what is winnable and what needs defending.

So we end up with a self-perpetuating thing where no-one really fights for ~100 seats because they are safe, and they remain safe because no-one else tries to win them.

So not a rotten borough then, just a safe seat.

I was expecting to hear that Bromsgrove had an electorate of ten people, all with the surname Javid or something.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole point of the UK electoral system is to minimise the choice offered to the voter, and to maximise the control exercised by the party.

Unlike PR STV where people can vote for a change from Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael and instead get Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael?

L1011

Aegir wrote: »

Unlike PR STV where people can vote for a change from Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael and instead get Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael?

50.3% of the electorate voted for the government we got.

35.2% of the UK electorate voted for the government they got in 2005; and 43.6% in 2019

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

50.3% of the electorate voted for the government we got.

35.2% of the UK electorate voted for the government they got in 2005; and 43.6% in 2019

Well, when you get the two main (opposite side of the same coin) parties going into a coalition like the one we have, at least half of that 50% got the Taoiseach they didn't vote for.
So by that logic only 25% got the government they voted for, but they all got representation without the manifesto they voted for.

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

50.3% of the electorate voted for the government we got.

35.2% of the UK electorate voted for the government they got in 2005; and 43.6% in 2019

If SF had run more candidates, they would have walked the election. Which indicates that the PR STV system favours the larger parties and maintains the status quo.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

If SF had run more candidates, they would have walked the election. Which indicates that the PR STV system favours the larger parties and maintains the status quo.

That was true of the 'Spring Tide' result for Labour, but it did not last long. Labour are in the noise in opinion polls.

The last time a single party got over 50% popular vote in the UK was 1932. Neither Labour (UK) nor Tories want STV or any form of proportional voting because it suits their voting power.

With the 'Safe seat' system, there is a dirth of talent at the MP level which, with this Tory Gov, has translated into an absence of talent at ministerial level, and in particular, PM level.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

If SF had run more candidates, they would have walked the election. Which indicates that the PR STV system favours the larger parties and maintains the status quo.

That was a tactical decision they made as the last election they felt they lost a few seats from running too many candidates.

It has nothing to do with bigger parties. The shift to SF simply caught them by surprise, they never expected it to be so big.

Wasn't a problem with the system, it was all down to the decisions taken by SF themselves.

O'Neill

Do people think this is the worst UK Government in our lifetimes? Worse than Thatcher? I never lived through Thatcher but the damage they are doing and in fact even to the Tory brand is unreal.

PeadarCo

Aegir wrote: »

If SF had run more candidates, they would have walked the election. Which indicates that the PR STV system favours the larger parties and maintains the status quo.

Sinn Fein would have walked the election had it been a first past the post system. However from memory they only got 2/3% more first preference votes than FF. So they didn't "walk the election". The relatively high number of independents and smaller parties shows PR STV doesn't favour larger parties. If the seats that been split evenly by first preference vote percentage SF would have been the biggest party but only marginally and you still would have ended up with 3 big parties on roughly the same number of seats give or take. Which isn't a whole lot different to what we actually got.


The UK system favours parties that have support geographically concentrated. A good example being the SNP when compared to the Lib Dems or UKIP. The difference between actual seats and national % of the vote is crazy for the relevant parties. Even for Labour and the Tories the concentration of their historical support generally means to win the election(ie most seats) they need to win a different % of the national vote.

Joe_ Public

O'Neill wrote: »

Do people think this is the worst UK Government in our lifetimes? Worse than Thatcher? I never lived through Thatcher but the damage they are doing and in fact even to the Tory brand is unreal.

Yes, yes i think so. You could offer the caveat that having to deal with a global pandemic was a bit of a rough deal. But governments elsewhere have used the crisis to show they can shine, not this one. Johnson and other maverick tory mps were fond of baiting Theresa May over her u turns but i think the latest one on exam results must have set a world record for government u turns. Ted Heath had a torrid time in the 70s but he at least brought the uk into europe, which was his big target, and there's a grim irony in that the main "achievement" of this wretched crew lies in taking them out.

ancapailldorcha

O'Neill wrote: »

Do people think this is the worst UK Government in our lifetimes? Worse than Thatcher? I never lived through Thatcher but the damage they are doing and in fact even to the Tory brand is unreal.

Honestly, yes.

They're making as little effort as possible to tackle the big issues affecting the country. They have tried to exploit polarisation as we saw when Priti Patel bragged about her new anti-refugee measures triggering the left. Anyone deemed sufficiently loyal to Brexit is protected from failure as we saw when Chris Grayling failed to win an election that had been rigged for him.

And now we have this latest scandal where any pupil not attending a luxurious private school has been penalised.

There was a superb piece in this week's Economist about how the Conservatives have come to rely increasingly on the elderly. This has exacerbated an already large intergenerational divide. The elderly are largely insulated from the financial consequences of their actions so they can afford to vote for their cultural priorities knowing that the Tory party will protect their lush privileges and pensions. Society in this country only looks like it's getting more and more divided.



The article is here if anyone is interested:

https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/08/15/why-boris-johnsons-grey-army-is-bad-for-growth

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

Are the people of Bromsgrove not permitted from voting for labour or liberal, or tuning an independent candidate?

They voted labour in 1971 but it was a by-election so doesn't really count.

The 1945 landslide saw Labour gain a seat and a Majority of 145.

Before that you have to go to 1906 when a Liberal passed the post first back when the Irish Parliamentary could stand 73 candidates unopposed.


Multi seat constituencies are so much better than FPTP.

L1011

Aegir wrote: »

If SF had run more candidates, they would have walked the election. Which indicates that the PR STV system favours the larger parties and maintains the status quo.

No, that's not how it works. You are conflating bits of how FPTP works massively here. I don't think you understand either at all.

They would have split their 24.5% of the vote across more candidates. A few more would have been elected, mostly at the expense of smaller left wing parties and Independents.

The resultant Government would still have got >50% of FPV.

Capt'n Midnight

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So we end up with a self-perpetuating thing where no-one really fights for ~100 seats because they are safe, and they remain safe because no-one else tries to win them.

192 seats haven’t changed hands since 1945 or earlier

parties spent 22 times more on some people’s votes than on others, depending on where they live (i.e. in a safe seat or a marginal seat). This means the value of your vote depends almost entirely on your location – it’s a postcode lottery.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There was a superb piece in this week's Economist about how the Conservatives have come to rely increasingly on the elderly. This has exacerbated an already large intergenerational divide. The elderly are largely insulated from the financial consequences of their actions so they can afford to vote for their cultural priorities knowing that the Tory party will protect their lush privileges and pensions. Society in this country only looks like it's getting more and more divided.

The triple lock on pensions means "I'm alright Jack" and no consequences for older voters.

From three years ago
Former Conservative deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine has warned the electoral base is dying off at a rate of 2 per cent a year

quokula

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The triple lock on pensions means "I'm alright Jack" and no consequences for older voters.

From three years ago
Former Conservative deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine has warned the electoral base is dying off at a rate of 2 per cent a year

I wouldn't completely write off all those voters as "I'm alright Jack" - the UK media landscape is an utter joke and many of these voters just have no idea of the extent of what the Tory government is doing and are just living in a bubble of misinformation.

O'Neill

quokula wrote: »

I wouldn't completely write off all those voters as "I'm alright Jack" - the UK media landscape is an utter joke and many of these voters just have no idea of the extent of what the Tory government is doing and are just living in a bubble of misinformation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8638193/Government-AXE-PHE-replace-new-institute-run-former-jockey-Baroness-Dido-Harding.html#reader-comments

I find this interesting though. Reading through the comments on the Daily Mail of all places no one seems to be impressed at this Government at the minuite, wishful thinking i suppose. I think i've said one here before I would never vote for the tories but at least respect (to some degree) their a party supposedly about law and and democracy ect.. Not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, there's something much more darker and sinister in this lot in my opinion and there really needs somone to now say 'STOP!'

Leroy42

TBF, if you had carried on like the Tories did the previous 10 years in government, and not only were not booted out of office but given a stonking big majority, then it is only natural to think that basically anything goes.

So UK electorate only have themselves to blame.

ancapailldorcha

quokula wrote: »

I wouldn't completely write off all those voters as "I'm alright Jack" - the UK media landscape is an utter joke and many of these voters just have no idea of the extent of what the Tory government is doing and are just living in a bubble of misinformation.

We're obviously painting with broad brushes here. Different demographics have different voting habits.

I wouldn't say that it's writing them off but it does sort of shoot the idea that our elders have much to teach us full of holes. When we see people happy for the country to enter a recession because they don't like foreigners or EU regulations they can't name, it's hard to see them as wellsprings of wisdom.

There are obviously other factors such as technological change and the rise and fall of various industries such as gaming and mining respectively but to see base prejudice being exalted by the purported wisest in society is depressing to put it mildly.

Leroy42 wrote: »

TBF, if you had carried on like the Tories did the previous 10 years in government, and not only were not booted out of office but given a stonking big majority, then it is only natural to think that basically anything goes.

So UK electorate only have themselves to blame.

Yeah. The Labour party has tried on various outfits to try and please the Great Brtitish public from Ed Miliband playing Blair to Corbyn promising to negotiate a Brexit deal to protect the public to Corbyn promising a new referendum on the subject.

I've been called out by acquaintances for saying that the likes of fisherman and red wall voters deserve what they get but after four trips to the voting booth in five years, it's hard to come to any other conclusion.

Joe_ Public

So Ed Davey is chosen as new Lib Dem leader. Have to admit i wasnt following this particular battle very closely (was anybody?) but nothing about Davey has ever filled me with any enthusiasm. Layla Moran, in contrast, has always come across well to me. I thought she had a fair bit to offer.

L1011

Who would have thought that two parties would be lead by Knights and neither would be the Tories?

Joe_ Public

In one report i read it says a big factor was Davey trading on his record as a government minister during the coalition while Moran offered a clean slate going forward. That doesnt even seem a contest to me, yet they voted 2 to 1 to go with the tainted old guard. I may be completely missing something but i do not understand these people.

ancapailldorcha

Moran was involved in an incident where she slapped her boyfriend in 2013 (Source). The Police arrested both of them. That's always put me off her.

That said, this was a depressing choice. I allowed my membership of the party to lapse but nonetheless received three phone calls asking me to vote for her but none from anyone asking the same for Davey.

PommieBast

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That doesnt even seem a contest to me, yet they voted 2 to 1 to go with the tainted old guard. I may be completely missing something but i do not understand these people.

I suspect that most people who would have been bothered by his association with the coalition have long since left the party for the Greens and never looked back.

Joe_ Public

PommieBast wrote: »

I suspect that most people who would have been bothered by his association with the coalition have long since left the party for the Greens and never looked back.

Could be alright. Flicking through Guardian print edition earlier and noticed they didnt even flag up this contest was being resolved today and a 50 something per cent turn out reflects a palpable sense of apathy about it. Dont know if that might be indicative of a wider trend, hard to tell when parliament isnt sitting sometimes, but tories would be happy enough if it did.

mick087

O'Neill wrote: »

Do people think this is the worst UK Government in our lifetimes? Worse than Thatcher? I never lived through Thatcher but the damage they are doing and in fact even to the Tory brand is unreal.

When i moved and lived in the UK Major was in his last year and Blair took over.I lived over there through the Blair years.

Im no fan of the Boris goverment or the tories. You might be right worse than Thather. The UK looks set to have it tough over the next few years.