The UK election thread

[Rum]

I like the principle of PR, but the BNP would have 12 seats. Fucking hell.

[ficklefiend]

I say we just cut the Celtic fringe loose if they try to leech off us, see how they like that.

Your biggest leech is the North of England, but keep on blaming Scotland, we're used to it.

[CJ]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Comparing the result of a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system to Proportional Peprisentation (PR) system and extrapolating from FPTP to PR is tenuous at best. Of course the parties and the voters would significantly change their behaviours. As you say from the parties point of view they would contest in a way to get the most possible effective votes.

One confounding variable would be eligibility to vote in a country specific way e.g. could I vote for the Scottish national party, given I'm English and could a Scott living in Leeds vote SNP? Currently and English person living in Glasgow could vote for or against the SNP.

[ficklefiend]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Comparing the result of a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system to Proportional Peprisentation (PR) system and extrapolating from FPTP to PR is tenuous at best. Of course the parties and the voters would significantly change their behaviours. As you say from the parties point of view they would contest in a way to get the most possible effective votes.

One confounding variable would be eligibility to vote in a country specific way e.g. could I vote for the Scottish national party, given I'm English and could a Scott living in Leeds vote SNP? Currently and English person living in Glasgow could vote for or against the SNP.

Yes, the main example in my head was that I can imagine the SNP encouraging scots living in other parts of the UK to vote for them, where now they can't. We all know there's no one more patriotic than a Scot outside of Scotland. Lol.

[CJ]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Comparing the result of a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system to Proportional Peprisentation (PR) system and extrapolating from FPTP to PR is tenuous at best. Of course the parties and the voters would significantly change their behaviours. As you say from the parties point of view they would contest in a way to get the most possible effective votes.

One confounding variable would be eligibility to vote in a country specific way e.g. could I vote for the Scottish national party, given I'm English and could a Scott living in Leeds vote SNP? Currently and English person living in Glasgow could vote for or against the SNP.

Yes, the main example in my head was that I can imagine the SNP encouraging scots living in other parts of the UK to vote for them, where now they can't. We all know there's no one more patriotic than a Scot outside of Scotland. Lol.

At the very least that would require all people in the UK to register there preferred 'Country of Origin' (E, I, S or W ). Without that then country based parties would only be able to expect votes from people resident in a particular place.

PR is fought with problems.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I say we just cut the Celtic fringe loose if they try to leech off us, see how they like that.

Your biggest leech is the North of England, but keep on blaming Scotland, we're used to it.

If Tories hadn't closed the mines, ship yards and steel works, would they still be leeching?

[CJ]

I say we just cut the Celtic fringe loose if they try to leech off us, see how they like that.

Your biggest leech is the North of England, but keep on blaming Scotland, we're used to it.

If Tories hadn't closed the mines, ship yards and steel works, would they still be leeching?

A recent trip to Glasgow, were I visited the People Museum, gave me a flavour of the depth of hatred the Scott's feel for the Tories, a hatred I would feel too if I were Scottish. They cut the heart out of Glasgow and have no right to ever hold a seat in Scotland until they have made significant reparations for the damage done by Thatcher.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I say we just cut the Celtic fringe loose if they try to leech off us, see how they like that.

Your biggest leech is the North of England, but keep on blaming Scotland, we're used to it. ...

I didn't say the Celtic fringe was leeching of us, but that's what the SNP and Plaid are (effectively) threatening to do as the price for any support for a Lib-Lab coalition.

[RuleBritannia]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Even with seats, the BNP couldn't pass any of their racist laws without support from other parties, which they won't get, 'cause no other party would dare be seen dealing with the BNP. The only way to pass laws on their own is to have over half the seats, which in turn would mean thay would have to have more than half the votes. In that case the BNP is the least of our worries, the more dangerous thing would be the 15million+ people voting for them.

[Geoff]

Home Rule for Lancashire!

[RuleBritannia]

Home Rule for Lancashire!

Present day Lancashire, or historical Lancashire? 'Cause you might need to go to war with Cumbria to get a chunk of her back.

[CJ]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Even with seats, the BNP couldn't pass any of their racist laws without support from other parties, which they won't get, 'cause no other party would dare be seen dealing with the BNP. The only way to pass laws on their own is to have over half the seats, which in turn would mean thay would have to have more than half the votes. In that case the BNP is the least of our worries, the more dangerous thing would be the 15million+ people voting for them.

+1

The more worrying possibility of PR are faith based political parties as they could possibly form alliances.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Even with seats, the BNP couldn't pass any of their racist laws without support from other parties, which they won't get, 'cause no other party would dare be seen dealing with the BNP. The only way to pass laws on their own is to have over half the seats, which in turn would mean thay would have to have more than half the votes. In that case the BNP is the least of our worries, the more dangerous thing would be the 15million+ people voting for them.

Don't forget a large amount of the votes for BNP are protest votes. Those voters don't actually want them to have any real power, but if they thought the BNP would have power then they wouldn't vote for them.

So in a way it would be a good thing. Fewer people voting BNP.

[CJ]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Even with seats, the BNP couldn't pass any of their racist laws without support from other parties, which they won't get, 'cause no other party would dare be seen dealing with the BNP. The only way to pass laws on their own is to have over half the seats, which in turn would mean thay would have to have more than half the votes. In that case the BNP is the least of our worries, the more dangerous thing would be the 15million+ people voting for them.

Don't forget a large amount of the votes for BNP are protest votes. Those voters don't actually want them to have any real power, but if they thought the BNP would have power then they wouldn't vote for them.

So in a way it would be a good thing. Fewer people voting BNP.

Hmmm Not sure your logic, although reasonable, is the whole story. In a PR environment all votes will count. It is conceivable that people who currently would not vote BNP, because it is a wasted ,may well do so in a PR system as it would lead to a public voice and some limited measure of respectability for their views. It's the way Hitler made it into power after all.

[RuleBritannia]

If we had been running a Proportional Representation model this would have been the outcome (making the huge assumption that the electorate behaved the same if offered a PR system). The top 3 parties, in any combination, would form a huge percentage of the seats and lock out any other combination. Interestingly UKIP and the BNP would be the 4th and 5th respectively taking 32 seats between them. I think that says a lot about some groundswell opinions in the UK.

Ugh, that's about enough to put me off. Although, surely changing the system would change the ways the parties operate too - the BNP seem to have spread themselves right across the country this election. I didn't even know they would be standing in my constituency. If it was just most votes=most seats, then would every party would do the same and spread themselves absolutely as wide as possible?

Even with seats, the BNP couldn't pass any of their racist laws without support from other parties, which they won't get, 'cause no other party would dare be seen dealing with the BNP. The only way to pass laws on their own is to have over half the seats, which in turn would mean thay would have to have more than half the votes. In that case the BNP is the least of our worries, the more dangerous thing would be the 15million+ people voting for them.

+1

The more worrying possibility of PR are faith based political parties as they could possibly form alliances.

That doesn't bother me, faith is more divisive than uniting. Muslims groups forming parties for sharia law may be undesirable, but what I said about the BNP applies to them too.