General British politics discussion thread

All the cases where FF won less than 50% of the vote but formed a majority government date from before 1979, when constituency boundaries were (in effect) drawn up by the Minister for Local Government of the day and there was some scope for gerrymandering. The scope was limited, but it was enough to enable a party in power to arrange matters so that, if it secured more than about 45% of the vote, it could get more than 50% of the seats.

Since constituency boundaries have been drawn up by an independent commission, the incumbent's gerrymandering advantage has disappeared. It's still mathematically possible for a single party to get more than 50% of the seats with significantly less than 50% of the vote, but it's not a situation that can be engineered and in practice its pretty unlikely to happen.

(It's true that FG did particularly well in 2011, securing 45% of the seats with 35% of the vote. But that happened because all the cards fell just right for them; they were lucky in count after count after count. It's not the case that another 2-4% of the vote could have secured them 8 extra seats; pretty much all the seats that they were close to getting the had already got, and in every constituency they were well short of getting one extra seat, which they would have needed to do in 8 more constituencies.

If they had got, say, an extra 10% of the vote they might have done it. But, even then, they would have needed all the cards to fall just right for them in all the close races.)

honestly the single biggest change PR voting would do to British (and American politics) is that it would stop politicians treating heir political opponents as evil incarnate out to destroy the country. It actually encourages the reaching across the aisles working together that the Americans keep promising they'll do every election cycle and never do.

If you consider that a good thing or not is your own mileage, I understand a lot of people dont like it when FF and FG work together, it does create sometimes uncomfortable optics or create the impression of a political elite.

But after living in both Ireland and the UK, I'll take that over the sh*te they have here where every party is out for themselves and the mud slinging is constant on all levels. I expect on the ground there to be a fair bit of mud slinging, but at the very least when it comes to running the country they are more then capable of working together without trying to backstab each other constantly.

It also encourages the very obvious common sense of moderate politicians banding together to block what they perceive as extremist (as we see constantly in Germany where AFD is constantly put out in the cold by all the moderate parties isolating them) again that is your own mileage but I'd expect if the UK was running a similar system UKIP would have gotten the same treatment.

Again, I don't know why you're being so dramatic and nasty with your comments.

Just a quick look and the 1965 and 69 election produced FF majority governments where they didn't win 50% of the popular vote.

The point I was making about 2011, which maybe you don't get, is that had Fg just won a little bit more, they could have formed a majority gov.

Maybe boards isn't for you.

He understands it perfectly but it suits the argument better if he pretends not to. Can't understand why anyone would be so bothered about defending FPTP though unless of course it's the old the English do everything better stuff.

It won't change anytime soon in the UK though because even if one major party backed PR it would end up in the old pounds and ounces style rows about the glory days of empire

Oh fair enough. I mean no system is perfect I think we can all agree on that.

Having lived with both I'll happily take the minor flaws of PR over my years of living in an ultra safe seat inhabited by Kate Hoey

Every system has flaws however the flaws you are claiming ours has are being grossly over exaggerated by you when you are only referencing the first preference percentages.

You resorted to insults and dramatic statements.

Under the UK system, independents hardly ever get elected.

I know it's 100 years ago now but Churchill was derided by many in his time for his 20 year stint in the Liberals in between his 2 periods as Tory MP

I am with you up to a point. I think you have to bear in mind that we have a home Secretary at the moment exhorting officials to "turn back the boats" and a government pushing through a crime bill that, among other things, seeks to clamp down on the democratic right to protest. I mean, tory politicians can call themselves moderates or even liberals, but fact is, in standing behind that bill they are sponsoring some pretty extreme measures by any account.

Also, I think we can say there are extremist elements in every country, the difference been some countries choose to enable them to gain a foothold in the electoral process. One advantage of this is you have them in the open where you can directly challenge them and defeat them. In other words, they are inside the tent and transparent as opposed to be outside it, chucking in all manner of effluent! Different ways of looking at it, i suppose.