• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Dan27
Member
(05-27-2015, 05:29 PM)
Dan27's Avatar


Thread Rules:
  • Do not attack a poster because of their party affiliation. We are above party partisan politics. Policies should, logically, dictate a poster's party affiliation
  • There is no need to reveal your party affiliation or who you have voted for in the past. If you are feeling pressurized into doing so, please feel free to contact a mod
  • If you are claiming something in an argument, use poll data, ONS/OBR statistics to support your argument
  • Take into consideration the limitations of your data sources and the statistical methods that are employed.
  • The TOS rules will be abided to

Previous Threads:

General overview of the UK’s Political System*:

The UK is a parliamentary democracy with The Queen as the Head of State. The Prime Minister leads the government and people vote in elections for MPs who will represent them in Parliament.

The Queen - Elizabeth II is a constitutional monarch: that is, she is Britain’s head of state, but her executive powers are limited by constitutional rules. Her role is mostly symbolic: she represents Britain on state visits and on ceremonial occasions. According to the royal website, her primary role is as a “focus of national unity”. She is queen of 16 former British colonies, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand; and head of the Commonwealth, a multinational body created after the dissolution of the British empire.

The Prime Minister - The Prime Minister is head of the UK government, currently David Cameron of the Conservative Party. He is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions. He:
  • oversees the operation of the Civil Service (which does the practical and administrative work of government) and government agencies
  • appoints members of the government
  • is the principal government figure in the House of Commons
The Deputy Prime Minister - The Deputy Prime Minister, most recently Nick Clegg MP of the Liberal Democrats, is the deputy head of government. The Deputy PM has absolutely no constitutional powers whatsoever. They usually deputise for the Prime Minister at the weekly Prime Ministers Questions sessions, though again this is up to the PM who can just as easily choose someone else to stand in for them. Occasionally the post will be ignored and the equally powerless "First Secretary of State" will be used in its stead, and sometimes neither will be used.

House of Commons (the lower chamber, the UK is bicameral) - The UK public elects 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and propose new laws, and can scrutinize government policies by asking ministers questions about current issues either in the Commons Chamber or in Committees.

House of Lords - The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It is independent from, and complements the work of, the elected House of Commons. The Lords shares the task of making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government.

Shadow government - The Shadow Cabinet is made up of frontbench MPs and Members of the Lords from the second largest party, or official Opposition party. The Opposition party appoints an MP to ‘shadow’ each of the members of the Cabinet. In this way the Opposition can make sure that it looks at every part of the Government and can question them thoroughly. It also means that the Opposition has MPs and Lords that are ready to take specific jobs in the Cabinet if they win at the next General Election. In the House of Lords the term “spokesperson” is used instead of “shadow”.

Political parties in the Commons - In addition to the main three parties, the Commons has a range of other political groups also elected by the public. This includes nationalist organizations like Plaid Cymru (Wales) and the Scottish National Party, Northern Ireland’s various political parties and minority parties like the Green Party or UKIP.

Political parties in the Lords - Outside of the main parties there are a small number of Members that are not affiliated with a main political party and those belonging to minority groups. In addition there are a limited number of Church of England archbishops and bishops and the Crossbench Peers group. The Crossbench Peers group is currently the second largest group in the Lords (after Labour); and is formed by independent Members who don’t take a party whip – which means that they are not told how to vote by a political party.

*Source: http://thinkingpolitics.org/2013/02/...mmies-like-me/

The Political Parties (in order of seats held):

Conservative Party (330 of 650 seats – 36.8% of Voter Share) Leader: David Cameron (Prime Minister)


Labour Party (232 of 650 seats – 30.4% of Voter Share) Leader: Jeremy Corbyn


Scottish National Party (SNP) (56 of 650 seats – 4.7% of Voter Share) Leader: Nicola Sturgeon


Liberal Democrats (8 of 650 seats – 7.9% of Voter Share) Leader: Tim Farron


Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (8 of 650 seats – 0.6% of Voter Share) Leader: Peter Robinson


Sinn Féin (4 of 650 seats – 0.6% of Voter Share) Leader: Gerry Adams


Plaid Cymru (3 of 650 seats – 0.6% of Voter Share) Leader: Leanne Wood


Social Democratic & Labour Party (SDLP) (3 of 650 seats – 0.3% of Voter Share) Leader: Alasdair McDonnell


Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) (2 of 650 seats – 0.4% of Voter Share) Leader: Mike Nesbitt


UK Independence Party (UKIP) (1 of 650 seats – 12.6% of Voter Share) Leader: Nigel Farage


Green Party of England and Wales (1 of 650 seats – 3.8% of Voter Share) Leader: Natalie Bennett


Upcoming Topics of Discussion/Major Events
  • Wednesday 27th May 2015 – State Opening and the Queen’s Speech
  • Mid to late 2015 – Labour leadership contest
  • Mid to late 2015 – Liberal Democrats leadership contest
  • 2016 – Northern Ireland Assembly Elections, National Assembly for Wales Elections, Scottish Parliament Elections, London Assembly Elections, London Mayor Elections
  • 2016/17/18 – English local government Elections
  • 2016 – Police and Crime Commissioner (England and Wales) Election
  • 2016 or 2017 – EU Referendum
  • 2017 – Mayoral Elections, Scottish local government Elections
  • 2018 – Northern Ireland local government Elections
  • May 2020 – UK General Election

Special thanks goes out to Volotaire for the inspiration blatant stealing of his Election OT formatting.
pulsemyne
Member
(05-27-2015, 05:47 PM)
Nice OP. Well done there my good sir!
uncleniccius
Member
(05-27-2015, 05:48 PM)
uncleniccius's Avatar
Good job op.
Thoughts on the announcements from today guys?
FliXFantatier
Member
(05-27-2015, 05:48 PM)
FliXFantatier's Avatar
I'm all in!
QuicheFontaine
Member
(05-27-2015, 05:50 PM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar
Nice OP Dan!

But don't the Conservatives have 331 seats, not 330?

Anyway, nice to have a new thread. It's so clean and fresh.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
(05-27-2015, 05:57 PM)
Sir_Crocodile's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dan27

The Deputy Prime Minister - The Deputy Prime Minister, most recently Nick Clegg MP of the Liberal Democrats, is the deputy head of government. He is responsible for political and constitutional reform. The Deputy PM is also responsible for other government policy areas and is consulted on all decisions made by the Prime Minister.

This isn't strictly true. Sometimes we don't always have one. I think Osbourne is First Secretary of State right now, which amounts to the same thing - but neither position is a constitutional necessity - they're sometimes not even used!
Kelthink
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:12 PM)
Kelthink's Avatar

Originally Posted by uncleniccius

Good job op.
Thoughts on the announcements from today guys?

We're fucked
MrChom
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:16 PM)
MrChom's Avatar
From what I hear there's been a retreat on the Human Rights act backing down to a "consultation" in this period, and not an outright repeal+reimplementation.

It may be to cover up for a rewrite now they're not in coalition, as some have stated, but I'm hoping it's for the much simpler reason of it being quietly dropped. Much like some of the demands on Europe before the referendum.

Hearing newer MPs be told not to clap but then still allowing the ridiculous booing and jeering is somewhat disheartening, though.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:19 PM)
Sir_Crocodile's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrChom

From what I hear there's been a retreat on the Human Rights act backing down to a "consultation" in this period, and not an outright repeal+reimplementation.

It may be to cover up for a rewrite now they're not in coalition, as some have stated, but I'm hoping it's for the much simpler reason of it being quietly dropped. Much like some of the demands on Europe before the referendum.

It's because they don't have the votes to get it through the commons. It's not a unanimously loved plan within the party at large, it's a sop for the right of the party, and it may not even be constitutional
MrChom
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:22 PM)
MrChom's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sir_Crocodile

It's because they don't have the votes to get it through the commons. It's not a unanimously loved plan within the party at large, it's a sop for the right of the party, and it may not even be legal

Also something I'd heard. If the central party leadership are already having to back down on a key policy that big, though, it doesn't bode well for this parliament, frankly. I doubt we'll see it end like 1997 with defections/lost by-elections causing a minority, but it's going to be VERY uncomfortable.
Kuros
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:25 PM)
Kuros's Avatar
They've snuck in something in the trade union act forcing funding to the labour party to go from opt out to opt in from union members.

McCluskey not happy.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:26 PM)
Sir_Crocodile's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrChom

Also something I'd heard. If the central party leadership are already having to back down on a key policy that big, though, it doesn't bode well for this parliament, frankly. I doubt we'll see it end like 1997 with defections/lost by-elections causing a minority, but it's going to be VERY uncomfortable.

It's just something that as you said they never thought they'd have to care about in coalition.

I think dave's been saved by the suggestion that it violates the good friday agreement though, I don't think anyone wants to go down that road again. I think it'll be quietly shelved, the troublemakers in the party are far more focused on the referendum anyway to raise much of a stink about it.

Tories trying to get the Investigatory Powers Bill through will be fun though
Nicktendo86
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:26 PM)
Nicktendo86's Avatar

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

Nice OP Dan!

But don't the Conservatives have 331 seats, not 330?

Anyway, nice to have a new thread. It's so clean and fresh.

The speaker is the 331st so technically shouldn't be included.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-27-2015, 06:27 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kuros

They've snuck in something in the trade union act forcing funding to go from opt out to opt in from members.

McCluskey not happy.

I'm fine with that so long as exactly the same thing is done for business donations - shareholders should have to opt in to any political donations made on behalf of a company, rather than an individual. Fair's fair, right?
QuicheFontaine
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:31 PM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nicktendo86

The speaker is the 331st so technically shouldn't be included.

Ah ok. I thought I'd seen the number 331 somewhere, that explains it.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:33 PM)
Sir_Crocodile's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

I'm fine with that so long as exactly the same thing is done for business donations - shareholders should have to opt in to any political donations made on behalf of a company, rather than an individual. Fair's fair, right?

This is a good point, though I think it'd make more sense to need a public shareholders vote for any political donation.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-27-2015, 06:35 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sir_Crocodile

This is a good point, though I think it'd make more sense to have a public shareholders vote for any political donation.

I mean, that's what unions used to have to do. Then they made them not only have to have a union-wide vote, but also provide individual opt-out consent, which is now being changed to opt-in. I don't see why companies should have less regulations than unions on this issue given they're effectively two sides of the same coin.
Nicktendo86
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:35 PM)
Nicktendo86's Avatar

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

Ah ok. I thought I'd seen the number 331 somewhere, that explains it.

That was Cameron's joke during the swearing in, that there has been confusion in the media as to how many seats the Tories actually won as they are not sure if Bercow is a conservative or not (ha ha)

Not surprised the hra thing was shelved, just not worth the fight with the EU ref coming up. If they don't feel they can get it through now it won't happen in this parliament.

I didn't hear anything about boundary chnagrs by the way, surely they haven't given that up? Its worth 20 seats!
Kuros
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:36 PM)
Kuros's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

I'm fine with that so long as exactly the same thing is done for business donations - shareholders should have to opt in to any political donations made on behalf of a company, rather than an individual. Fair's fair, right?

They could do a shareholder vote. But the sort of companies that donate to the Tory's would vote it through so what difference would it make.

I should add when i was in USDAW (a long time ago) i opted out of Labour Party donations.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:38 PM)
Sir_Crocodile's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

I mean, that's what unions used to have to do. Then they made them not only have to have a union-wide vote, but also provide individual opt-out consent, which is now being changed to opt-in. I don't see why companies should have less regulations than unions on this issue given they're effectively two sides of the same coin.

The union money paid to a party would be a direct result of their subs from members while a companies money would be based on how well it was doing as a company and not by any action of its individual shareholders right? There's quite a difference there.

Not that I understand the tories obsession on this front, labour gets peanuts from unions compares to what the tories do from businesses.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-27-2015, 06:39 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kuros

They could do a shareholder vote. But the sort of companies that donate to the Tory's would vote it through so what difference would it make.

I should add when i was in USDAW (a long time ago) i opted out of Labour Party donations.

Why should companies be allowed to donate to political parties with the consent of (say) 51% of shareholders when 49% did not provide consent, when unions cannot donate to political parties with the consent of 51% of union members when 49% did not provide consent. It would be a gross mistreatment and biased in favour of firms against labourers - something we hardly need more of in this country.

Honestly we should just abolish donations and publicly fund parties, but the press will never allow it because it threatens their commercial interests.

The union money paid to a party would be a direct result of their subs from members while a companies money would be based on how well it was doing as a company and not by any action of its individual shareholders right? There's quite a difference there.

Not that I understand the tories obsession on this front, labour gets peanuts from unions compares to what the tories do from businesses.

Shareholders *own* (collectively) that company, though. The fact they don't (directly) run the company is irrelevant to deciding what to do with the profits generated by that company and owned by them. Your bank runs your pension, even if that money belongs to you, but you'd be pretty livid if they decided to donate some of it to political parties. Sadly, this actually (sort of) happens.
Masquerader
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:40 PM)
Masquerader's Avatar
Neat OP, but a question mark should be put under the DUP leader image~!
Sir_Crocodile
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:41 PM)
Sir_Crocodile's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

Honestly we should just abolish donations and publicly fund parties, but the press will never allow it because it threatens their commercial interests.

Yeah, public funding for parties would be the ideal, with a total ban on any other kind.

As you say, the papers would rip it to shreds though, "rich politicians want YOUR cash to feather their duck houses"
dalyr95
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:44 PM)
dalyr95's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nicktendo86

That was Cameron's joke during the swearing in, that there has been confusion in the media as to how many seats the Tories actually won as they are not sure if Bercow is a conservative or not (ha ha)

Not surprised the hra thing was shelved, just not worth the fight with the EU ref coming up. If they don't feel they can get it through now it won't happen in this parliament.

I didn't hear anything about boundary chnagrs by the way, surely they haven't given that up? Its worth 20 seats!

Boundaries get redrawn in 2017 automatically, the Tories wanted to bring it forward to pre 2015.
Kuros
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:48 PM)
Kuros's Avatar

Originally Posted by dalyr95

Boundaries get redrawn in 2017 automatically, the Tories wanted to bring it forward to pre 2015.

Yep and it makes another Tory government in 2020 likely.

The system is slightly in favour towards Labour atm which makes their current electoral failures all the more damning!
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-27-2015, 06:50 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kuros

Yep and it makes another Tory government in 2020 likely.

The system is slightly in favour towards Labour atm which makes their current electoral failures all the more damning!

It's not in favour of Labour at the moment, actually. It *was* in favour of Labour until this election, but now Labour actually accumulates a very large amount of votes in Scotland but distributed evenly enough not to actually win seats, so they have a very large amount of wasted votes. The current borders actually favour the Conservatives, quite heavily so, and the redrawn ones will favour them even more - simply because the Conservatives are geographically concentrated more than Labour or, for example, UKIP.
Tak3n
Banned
(05-27-2015, 06:51 PM)
so BBC news are saying the queens speech is all about working people, and in David Camerons words "not for the sit at home people"
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-27-2015, 06:53 PM)
Crab's Avatar
The full list of proposed legislation from the Queen's Speech:

1) Full employment and welfare benefits bill
Freezes the main rates of most working-age benefits for two years. Reduces the level of the benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000.

2) Enterprise bill
Cuts red tape to save business “at least £10bn” over the parliament. Creates Small Business Conciliation Service. Improves the business rates system. Caps exit payments to public sector workers.

3) National Insurance contributions bill/finance bill
This is the “tax lock commitment”. It ensures there are no rises in NI contribution rates, VAT rates or income tax rates

4) Childcare bill
Will give working families an entitlement to 30 hours a week of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for 38 weeks a year.

5) Housing bill
Extends “right to buy” by allowing housing association tenants to buy their own homes at the same discounts as council tenants. Requires councils to sell vacant council houses, to help build more affordable homes. Introduces a “right to build”.

6) Energy bill
Changes the law to give local communities the final say on wind farm applications.

7) Immigration bill
The bill introduces an offence of “illegal working”, providing a firm legal foundation for wages paid to illegal migrants to be seized. There will be a new enforcement agency that cracks down on the worst cases of exploitation. Consultation on funding apprenticeship schemes for British and EU workers by implementing a visa levy on companies using foreign labour.

8) Trade Unions bill
This will introduce a 50 per cent threshold for the turnout on union ballots. For industrial action to go ahead, 40 per cent of those entitled to vote must back it. Union members must “opt in” to political funds. There will be time limits on the mandate following a strike ballot.

9) Education and adoption bill
Gives ministers more powers to intervene in what they call “coasting schools” and turn them into academies. Also creates “regional adoption agencies” to match children with parents across local authority boundaries.

10) Cities and local government devolution bill
Gives the government power to impose elected mayors on certain areas, who would take on the functions of the local police and crime commissioner, as well as powers over regeneration and transport.

11) High speed rail (London-West Midlands) bill
Gives the government the power to build the first stage of HS2, from London to the West Midlands.

12) Scotland bill
Implements the recommendations of the cross-party Smith Commission. This will give the Scottish parliament the power to vary the rates and bands of income tax, greater control over VAT and complete control over air passenger duty. It will also be able to change housing benefit payments.

13) Wales bill
Gives the Welsh assembly further powers, including over ports, energy developments, transport regulations, speed limits and sewerage services.

14) Northern Ireland bill
Establishes a body called the Historical Investigations Unit to look into unsolved deaths during the Troubles, as the 30 years’ of violence that beset Northern Ireland up to the early 1990s are known.

15) EU referendum bill
Legislates for a referendum before the end of 2017, based on the same franchise as the 2015 general election.

16) Extremism bill
Gives the police and ministers more powers to ban what they consider to be extremist groups. Also gives the broadcasting regulator Ofcom greater powers to take measures against channels it deems to be broadcasting extremist material.

17) Investigatory powers bill
Known by critics as the “Snoopers’ Charter”, this will make companies keep communications data for longer so that intelligence agencies can gain access to them.

18) Police and criminal justice bill
A range of measures to reform the police service. They include: forcing police to apply to the courts for special permission if they want to keep suspects on bail awaiting charge for more than 28 days; giving Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary more powers; giving the Independent Police Complaints Commission more powers; and applying freedom of information laws to the Police Federation.

19) Psychoactive substances bill
Outlaws certain ‘legal highs’.

20) Armed forces bill
Continues the legal basis for recruitment and discipline of the armed forces — a formality.

21) Bank of England bill
Measures designed to make the central bank more transparent, including making it publish the minutes of Monetary Policy Committee meetings alongside interest rate decisions.

22) Charities bill
Gives the Charity Commission more powers to disqualify both charities and trustees found guilty of wrongdoing.

23) Votes for life bill
Scrapping the system whereby British citizens living overseas lose their votes after 15 years.

24) EU (finance) bill
Approving the EU’s multi-annual Budget, which David Cameron agreed in 2013.

25) Buses bill
Giving directly elected mayors the power to take control of bus services in their areas.

26) Draft public service ombudsman bill
A public service ombudsman to take over the separate functions of the parliamentary ombudsman, the health ombudsman, the local government ombudsman and potentially the housing ombudsman.

OTHER MEASURES
1) English votes for English laws
Changing the standing orders of the House of Commons to introduce another stage of voting on any issue that does not affect Scotland, at which Scottish MPs would be barred from participating.

2) Seven-day GP services
This does not require primary legislation, but confirms David Cameron’s manifesto pledge of a “seven-day NHS”.

3) British Bill of Rights
The speech says the government will bring forward a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, but does not give any details of wording or timing. This is something more likely to be carried out in a future session.

4) Personal Tax Allowance
Ensures that increases to the income tax personal allowance reflect changes to the national minimum wage — so anyone working 30 hours a week on national minimum wage pays no income tax.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d930a046-0...44feabdc0.html
MrChom
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:55 PM)
MrChom's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sir_Crocodile

Yeah, public funding for parties would be the ideal, with a total ban on any other kind.

As you say, the papers would rip it to shreds though, "rich politicians want YOUR cash to feather their duck houses"

This. Much like they shouldn't be allowed "donated" offices and such either. The external influence needs to be cut out.

Personally I'd also impose a 5 year ban (before and after being an MP) on being a corporate director/board member, and on taking second jobs of any kind while holding an elected position. I'm not SAYING there's corruption now, I'm just saying an awful lot of members of every colour seem to be able to get on the right committee, or have just the right amount of influence over something....
Kuros
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:56 PM)
Kuros's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

It's not in favour of Labour at the moment, actually. It *was* in favour of Labour until this election, but now Labour actually accumulates a very large amount of votes in Scotland but distributed evenly enough not to actually win seats, so they have a very large amount of wasted votes. The current borders actually favour the Conservatives, quite heavily so, and the redrawn ones will favour them even more - simply because the Conservatives are geographically concentrated more than Labour or, for example, UKIP.

That is Labours fault for their spectacular failures in Scotland.
Kuros
Member
(05-27-2015, 06:58 PM)
Kuros's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrChom

This. Much like they shouldn't be allowed "donated" offices and such either. The external influence needs to be cut out.

Personally I'd also impose a 5 year ban (before and after being an MP) on being a corporate director/board member, and on taking second jobs of any kind while holding an elected position. I'm not SAYING there's corruption now, I'm just saying an awful lot of members of every colour seem to be able to get on the right committee, or have just the right amount of influence over something....

2nd jobs i'd agree with. I think the first part wouldn't fly with restraint of trade laws as valid as it is.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-27-2015, 06:59 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kuros

That is Labours fault for their spectacular failures in Scotland.

Jim Murphy certainly made the problem worse but to be honest, LiS was doomed from the start. The party needs to be Bavarianized; it's Labour's only way to stay relevant in multiple regions that have all developed very different political centres.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(05-27-2015, 08:15 PM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

19) Psychoactive substances bill
Outlaws certain ‘legal highs’.

I've noticed laughing gas canisters EVERYWHERE in Bristol.

I don't care that they're having a jolly, but there's no need to litter :-/
Nicktendo86
Member
(05-27-2015, 09:28 PM)
Nicktendo86's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

It's not in favour of Labour at the moment, actually. It *was* in favour of Labour until this election, but now Labour actually accumulates a very large amount of votes in Scotland but distributed evenly enough not to actually win seats, so they have a very large amount of wasted votes. The current borders actually favour the Conservatives, quite heavily so, and the redrawn ones will favour them even more - simply because the Conservatives are geographically concentrated more than Labour or, for example, UKIP.

Come on Crab, the current system favours the Tories? Labour always get more seats for fewer votes, 2095 being a prime example.

Labour tends to get more parliamentary seats for a smaller percentage of the popular vote.

The 2005 election is a memorable recent example of the mismatch, but there are worse cases. In the general election of February 1974 Labour actually got very slightly fewer votes than the Conservatives nationally but ended up with more seats.

How can a party win an election without getting the most votes?

In our first-past-the-post system, the winning candidate in each of the 650 parliament constituencies is the one who gets more votes than anyone else.

A landslide victory or a win by a handful of votes each leads to one MP being returned to Westminster. Votes for candidates who come second or worse are “wasted”.

It follows that parties do better when they win with narrow victories rather than thumping great majorities. More votes count towards a victory rather than going to waste.

Parties do better when they win seats that have fewer voters in them and where voter turnout is lower.

From the 1990s on in particular, these factors have increasingly favoured Labour, according to politics professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University.

Despite independent reviews of the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies, seats won by the Conservatives in 2010 had about 3,700 more names on the electoral register than those won by Labour.

Labour tends to win in urban seats where there is a low turnout, whereas the Conservatives win in higher-voting suburban and rural areas.

Prof Curtice reckons the system has become so biased that, where Labour won a safe majority with a lead of just three percentage points in the popular vote in 2005, the Tories would need an 11-point lead over Labour to secure an overall majority.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...r-labour/19025


Edit: I see your point about Scotland changing the game but I just do not accept that the current boundaries heavily favour the conservatives.

Edit 2: ignore me, I get it now after re-reading. Lack of sleep with a newborn baby us really taking effect!

I think this illustrates what you mean

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...bable-politics
31GhostsIV
Banned
(05-27-2015, 10:01 PM)
Here's an idea... why not redraw the boundaries so no political party has an advantage and they're on as level a playing field as possible?

How do the Tories get to swing boundaries in their favour on the grounds of a 'Labour advantage' when they've just won a majority? Shouldn't the boundaries be changed to even the playing field, not swing it in favour of those currently in power (or any particular party for that matter?). Democracy, ladies and gentlemen.

Good to see the Tories backing down on the HRA quietly. Hopefully the snooper's charter will go the same way.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(05-27-2015, 10:11 PM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dan27

The Deputy Prime Minister - The Deputy Prime Minister, most recently Nick Clegg MP of the Liberal Democrats, is the deputy head of government. He is responsible for political and constitutional reform. The Deputy PM is also responsible for other government policy areas and is consulted on all decisions made by the Prime Minister.

Lovely OP Dan, but none of the above is true. Even if there is a Deputy PM he doesn't have to do anything important like actually deputise for the actual PM (see for example J.Prescott).

Originally Posted by MrChom

From what I hear there's been a retreat on the Human Rights act backing down to a "consultation" in this period, and not an outright repeal+reimplementation.

It may be to cover up for a rewrite now they're not in coalition, as some have stated, but I'm hoping it's for the much simpler reason of it being quietly dropped. Much like some of the demands on Europe before the referendum.

Good thing too. I think that this is one of those things they put in as a negotiating point and are embarrassed to be stuck with.

Originally Posted by Crab

Honestly we should just abolish donations and publicly fund parties, but the press will never allow it because it threatens their commercial interests.

Absolutely not, no way. First thing you know they will be demanding even more public money. Then they will be saying that by comparison with, say, the USA they are underfunded and demand even more. It would be never ending.

Originally Posted by MrChom

Personally I'd also impose a 5 year ban (before and after being an MP) on being a corporate director/board member, and on taking second jobs of any kind while holding an elected position. I'm not SAYING there's corruption now, I'm just saying an awful lot of members of every colour seem to be able to get on the right committee, or have just the right amount of influence over something....

It can't be done, not with our current constitution. You ban "second" jobs for MPs and you automatically ban them from being, er, Ministers for example. And the whole thing goes down the chute.
Xun
Member
(05-27-2015, 10:18 PM)
Xun's Avatar

Originally Posted by 31GhostsIV

Here's an idea... why not redraw the boundaries so no political party has an advantage and they're on as level a playing field as possible?

How do the Tories get to swing boundaries in their favour on the grounds of a 'Labour advantage' when they've just won a majority? Shouldn't the boundaries be changed to even the playing field, not swing it in favour of those currently in power (or any particular party for that matter?). Democracy, ladies and gentlemen.

Good to see the Tories backing down on the HRA quietly. Hopefully the snooper's charter will go the same way.

I highly doubt it, sadly.

Theresa May will get her way.



It's a shame we constantly have to put up with an authoritarian prat as our Home Secretary.
31GhostsIV
Banned
(05-27-2015, 10:35 PM)

Originally Posted by Xun

Thanks for the nightmare fuel, Xun!
Kuros
Member
(05-28-2015, 12:25 AM)
Kuros's Avatar

Originally Posted by 31GhostsIV

Here's an idea... why not redraw the boundaries so no political party has an advantage and they're on as level a playing field as possible?

How do the Tories get to swing boundaries in their favour on the grounds of a 'Labour advantage' when they've just won a majority? Shouldn't the boundaries be changed to even the playing field, not swing it in favour of those currently in power (or any particular party for that matter?). Democracy, ladies and gentlemen.

Good to see the Tories backing down on the HRA quietly. Hopefully the snooper's charter will go the same way.

The boundary review was done independently by the boundary commission.

The new boundary's remove labours advantage making it more equal. Rather han giving the Tories an advantage.
Dan27
Member
(05-28-2015, 09:01 AM)
Dan27's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sir_Crocodile

This isn't strictly true. Sometimes we don't always have one. I think Osbourne is First Secretary of State right now, which amounts to the same thing - but neither position is a constitutional necessity - they're sometimes not even used!

Originally Posted by phisheep

Lovely OP Dan, but none of the above is true. Even if there is a Deputy PM he doesn't have to do anything important like actually deputise for the actual PM (see for example J.Prescott).

Cheers guys - I thought it was a sketchy description too - if there's a more suitable (and true!) description of what the Deputy PM does I'll replace it :)
Maledict
Member
(05-28-2015, 09:13 AM)
Maledict's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kuros

The boundary review was done independently by the boundary commission.

The new boundary's remove labours advantage making it more equal. Rather han giving the Tories an advantage.

Having known people who work on the commission, I can confidently say they are anything but politically neutral. Nowhere near as bad as the states, but tilted none the less.

And some of the new bills are infuriating. The 'short, sharp' prison sentances one in particular - it is literally the opposite of good policy to use short prison sentances. It's not even up for debate - all the research shows that whilst long prison sentances absolutely have an impact on recidivism, short prison sentances merely exacerbate the problem anc can increase both the rate and frequency of re-offending.

I really detest policy making at the behest of the Daily Mail, and consider it the biggest weakness of Cameron's government - they constantly fail to challenge that rag, at every turn, even when it leaves them doing things they know will cause problems.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
(05-28-2015, 09:30 AM)
Sir_Crocodile's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nicktendo86

Come on Crab, the current system favours the Tories? Labour always get more seats for fewer votes, 2095 being a prime example.

2095 was a horrible election, I had to transmat to london all the way from jupiter to cast my space-vote as the jovian colonies suspended x-mail ballots over concerns of fraud.

Originally Posted by Dan27

Cheers guys - I thought it was a sketchy description too - if there's a more suitable (and true!) description of what the Deputy PM does I'll replace it :)

How about:

Deputy PM is a largely ceremonial office, in modern times often given to someone useless to assuage their ego and give them a position of "power" from which they can do little real damage to the government. They are often thrown the odd bushel of responsibility that over time become a bizarre patchwork of authority which they cackhandedly wield in between games of croquet or ensuring their party will no longer exist.

no? well that or:

The Deputy PM has absolutely no constitutional powers whatsoever. They usually deputise for the Prime Minister at the weekly Prime Ministers Questions sessions, though again this is up to the PM who can just as easily choose someone else to stand in for them. Occasionally the post will be ignored and the equally powerless "First Secretary of State" will be used in its stead, and sometimes neither will be used.

They may have additional powers and responsibilities granted to them at them by the prime minister of the day if they don't already hold portfolio within the government.
Moosichu
Member
(05-28-2015, 09:30 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/55...spite-dementia


Lord Janner was appointed to a law comittee after passing power of Attorney to his children.



Out of all the stuff in the Queen's speech, some of its good but the extremism bill is very worrying.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-28-2015, 09:43 AM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by 31GhostsIV

Here's an idea... why not redraw the boundaries so no political party has an advantage and they're on as level a playing field as possible?

How do the Tories get to swing boundaries in their favour on the grounds of a 'Labour advantage' when they've just won a majority? Shouldn't the boundaries be changed to even the playing field, not swing it in favour of those currently in power (or any particular party for that matter?). Democracy, ladies and gentlemen.

Good to see the Tories backing down on the HRA quietly. Hopefully the snooper's charter will go the same way.

You can't redraw the boundaries to create a level playing field, really. It's just not possible given how FPTP works. If you want to have equal sized constituencies that are in the realm of +/-10% of 67,000 constituents and don't break across county council or borough lines, then there's only so many ways you can draw them. The Conservatives aren't getting an advantage because they personally draw up the borders - they don't, it's done by an independent body. They get an advantage because their vote is more geographically concentrated than Labour's. This means they do poorly in seats they lose, and just well enough in seats they win; so not many votes are wasted. Labour's big problem is that they're doing quite well in places they're losing (Scotland) and too well in seats they win meaning wasted votes piling up (the North).

The only way to change this is to get rid of FPTP.

This is genuinely my no.1 political desire.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
(05-28-2015, 10:24 AM)
DeFiBkIlLeR's Avatar
Is this just going to be a place for the left wing to gather and shout down anyone that dares to disagree with them?



..because I got enough of that at RllMuk forums where the intolerant, fascist hatred of such people with differing views is quickly pounced upon with snotty, condescending replies.
FliXFantatier
Member
(05-28-2015, 10:29 AM)
FliXFantatier's Avatar

Originally Posted by DeFiBkIlLeR

Is this just going to be a place for the left wing to gather and shout down anyone that dares to disagree with them?



..because I got enough of that at RllMuk forums where the intolerant, fascist hatred of such people with differing views is quickly pounced upon with snotty, condescending replies.

I admit it. I'm intolerant towards
  • racists
  • homophobes
  • sexists
  • xenophobes
  • Bigots
  • islamophobes
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(05-28-2015, 10:31 AM)
Crab's Avatar

Absolutely not, no way. First thing you know they will be demanding even more public money. Then they will be saying that by comparison with, say, the USA they are underfunded and demand even more. It would be never ending.

I disagree. They already have access to public money, and it's only rarely expanded upon because no politician wants to be seen to be the one to do it - same reason we had that farce with IPSA recommending pay rises for MPs, then MPs turning it down. I don't see why politicians would be any more comfortable expanding it in the future.
Nicktendo86
Member
(05-28-2015, 10:32 AM)
Nicktendo86's Avatar
Anyone see the abuse Carswell got yesterday from the idiots at that anti Tory demo? No place for that in a democratic society. Shouting Nazi and racist at him as well, how much of a fucking idiot do you have to be.
Moosichu
Member
(05-28-2015, 10:34 AM)
Moosichu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nicktendo86

Anyone see the abuse Carswell got yesterday from the idiots at that anti Tory demo? No place for that in a democratic society. Shouting Nazi and racist at him as well, how much of a fucking idiot do you have to be.

Honestly. I don't get people like that. Do you have a link?

They seem to prefer alienting people to convincing them.
Nicktendo86
Member
(05-28-2015, 10:35 AM)
Nicktendo86's Avatar

Originally Posted by Moosichu

Honestly. I don't get people like that. Do you have a link?

Yep

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/polit...-10279837.html

And another one with a bit more detail:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ng-racist.html

Thread Tools