The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[yorksrob]

Which one Rob?

Cobham, which is a world leader in mid-air refuelling technology.

Apologies - I would post a link to BBC news, but I'm only on my mobile.

 

[Cowley]

Cobham, which is a world leader in mid-air refuelling technology.

Apologies - I would post a link to BBC news, but I'm only on my mobile.

Oh yes I saw that too.
Here’s the link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50874181

 

[yorksrob]

I yes I saw that too.
Here’s the link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50874181

Cheers for posting !

 

[Cowley]

Cheers for posting !

Merry Christmas.

 

[yorksrob]

Merry Christmas.

You too Mr Cowley

 

[JonasB]

There are problems with FPTP, but before we change away from it I'd like to know how the above sorts of problems would be dealt with.

If you feel that it is important with a local MP, then the German system might be a good system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany

 

[edwin_m]

Anyone who knows Johnson knows at heart he’s an internationalist. He’s no protectionist or Little Engländer.

I'd like to think that but I don't think anyone knows anything of the sort. He changes his spots according to what will serve his political ambition.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'd like to think that but I don't think anyone knows anything of the sort. He changes his spots according to what will serve his political ambition.

Both views are right.

Boris is international in his outlook and his donors will expect that too.

However, he will say anything in order to retain power.

 

[TrafficEng]

If you feel that it is important with a local MP, then the German system might be a good system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany

It's the same 'Additional Member system' we use for elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly. One group of representatives is directly elected by constituency using FPTP, another group is selected using a party list and PR vote.

A flaw in that system, as far as the UK Parliament goes, is that we would either need to substantially increase the number of MPs in total (unlikely to be popular) or else merge constituencies to reduce the number of constituency MPs.

Given we already have a rather unfair imbalance between the largest (by population) and smallest constituencies, merging existing seats to create super constituencies would lead to some (especially in Scotland) covering an impracticably large (and/or unnatural) geographic area. This would devalue having a 'local' MP to the point that many people would want to get rid of them completely.

Interestingly, in London there have been moves (by Conservatives/Labour) to scrap the additional member system and go to an Assembly of members elected to a constituency through FPTP. Although there is a party political incentive for this proposal, it isn't without support from the wider public.

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely the answer is STV? It means larger constituencies but they'll be multi-member (so the workload shouldn't be unmanageable), you'll still have the link to a person you can go to moan raise concerns with and actually you're more likely to have an MP who you actually voted for to talk to and represent you.

 

[Busaholic]

According to other calculations, if PR had been used the Tories would not have had a majority even with the support of the Brexit party. Under FPTP the Tories won a majority anyway with a minority of the vote, and are effectively implementing the policies of the Brexit party. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/LEFT]

I've heard that the combined Lab,LibDem,SNP, PC and Green vote was more than the combined Cons/Brexit vote so you could say the Remain (or, at least, Second Referendum) vote was higher than Leave, although including Labour would be contentious to some. Just goes to show, for me as a Confirmed Remainer, that if Labour, LibDem etc had got their act together the outcome could have been very different. Regret to say, Farage and Johnson (or Cummings, more likely) played a blinder. WHY WHY WHY did we not learn from the election of Trump? Corbyn and Swinson have to shoulder a large part of the blame, not that either are intelligent enough to realise that.

 

[bramling]

I've heard that the combined Lab,LibDem,SNP, PC and Green vote was more than the combined Cons/Brexit vote so you could say the Remain (or, at least, Second Referendum) vote was higher than Leave, although including Labour would be contentious to some. Just goes to show, for me as a Confirmed Remainer, that if Labour, LibDem etc had got their act together the outcome could have been very different. Regret to say, Farage and Johnson (or Cummings, more likely) played a blinder. WHY WHY WHY did we not learn from the election of Trump? Corbyn and Swinson have to shoulder a large part of the blame, not that either are intelligent enough to realise that.

This analysis doesn’t consider the possibility that not everyone voted along Brexit lines. In particular there was no left-of-centre party offering a definitive leave manifesto, and arguably same can be said for right-of-centre and remain.

Likewise that the Labour and Lib Dem positions weren’t the same, one offering a rather vague second referendum (including a so-called “credible leave option” whatever that might have been), the other offering a complete bollocks to Brexit.

 

[edwin_m]

This analysis doesn’t consider the possibility that not everyone voted along Brexit lines. In particular there was no left-of-centre party offering a definitive leave manifesto, and arguably same can be said for right-of-centre and remain.

Likewise that the Labour and Lib Dem positions weren’t the same, one offering a rather vague second referendum (including a so-called “credible leave option” whatever that might have been), the other offering a complete bollocks to Brexit.

But going by opinion polls specifically asking the question on Brexit, those opposite effects would appear to cancel out as support has been consistently around 52% for remaining.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...he-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/

 

[Busaholic]

This analysis doesn’t consider the possibility that not everyone voted along Brexit lines. In particular there was no left-of-centre party offering a definitive leave manifesto, and arguably same can be said for right-of-centre and remain.

Likewise that the Labour and Lib Dem positions weren’t the same, one offering a rather vague second referendum (including a so-called “credible leave option” whatever that might have been), the other offering a complete bollocks to Brexit.

I accept all that, just pointing out that if the distribution of votes nationally led to an equal allocation of seats then there could have been an intriguing interlude while the two main parties tried to get others 'on side' sufficiently to form a viable government. and, in the case of the Tories, it could surely only have been the Brexit party who would have worked with them, although I admit I can't work out what the DUP might do! On the other hand, the cynic in me might ask 'if Swinson had been offered Deputy PM by Johnson would she have turned it down out of hand?' Hmm....

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A flaw in that system, as far as the UK Parliament goes, is that we would either need to substantially increase the number of MPs in total (unlikely to be popular) or else merge constituencies to reduce the number of constituency MPs.

Given we already have a rather unfair imbalance between the largest (by population) and smallest constituencies, merging existing seats to create super constituencies would lead to some (especially in Scotland) covering an impracticably large (and/or unnatural) geographic area. This would devalue having a 'local' MP to the point that many people would want to get rid of them completely.

But that problem only impacts a very tiny proportion of constituencies. And if it was thought to be such a big issue, there's a fairly obvious fix of, just keep the current system for those few constituencies where the population density is too low to justify double sized constituencies (basically the Scottish Highlands and Islands). Or if that's unpalatable - just limit the number of 'additional' MPs. If the Commons was, say, 75% constituency MPs, 25% top-up MPs, then you wouldn't get perfect proportionality, but you'd get hugely better than the current system - and constituencies wouldn't be that much bigger than they are today.

I don't think the entire democratic system and the overwhelming unfairness of FPTP for the entire country should be held hostage to the requirements of a tiny, tiny, proportion of voters living in the most sparsely populated parts of the country.

I wonder if a more serious problem for the Additional Member System is the way you get two classes of representative - those who have constituencies, and those who don't. I'd be curious to know how that problem gets resolved in places that have it for national parliaments.

Interestingly, in London there have been moves (by Conservatives/Labour) to scrap the additional member system and go to an Assembly of members elected to a constituency through FPTP. Although there is a party political incentive for this proposal, it isn't without support from the wider public.

I think the Conservatives are the only ones behind that move. I've never heard of any support for it within Labour. Nor have I ever heard of any support for it amongst the wider public (90%+ of whom probably couldn't care less what system is used to elect the London Assembly). It looks to me like pure gerrymandering by the Conservatives to try to get a system that gives them a slightly bigger chance of control in a city where they have basically no chance of getting more than half the votes in the near future.

 

[Peter Kelford]

PR could work, but if it's like the EU elections where there's (say) 3 MP's for any given area then you're likely to see less political engagement in some areas.

Let's take for example an MP who covers a few villages and a small town which is then lumped in with two significant urban areas (each with their own MP) either side of this rural area. Now given that the majority of the votes are likely to come from the two significant urban areas is it likely that the parties aren't going to spend much time in the villages.

As such, although those in the urban areas may find that there's an MP which is more likely to be from a party with a view closer to theirs those in the rural area could find that the MP's are less likely to actually listen to them as then make up a smaller amount of those voting for them.

right-of-centre and remain.

An obviously voting Lib Dem would be a vote into the bin unlike under a PR, AV or Additional Member system.

But that problem only impacts a very tiny proportion of constituencies. And if it was thought to be such a big issue, there's a fairly obvious fix of, just keep the current system for those few constituencies where the population density is too low to justify double sized constituencies (basically the Scottish Highlands and Islands). Or if that's unpalatable - just limit the number of 'additional' MPs. If the Commons was, say, 75% constituency MPs, 25% top-up MPs, then you wouldn't get perfect proportionality, but you'd get hugely better than the current system - and constituencies wouldn't be that much bigger than they are today.

We are talking in the main about remote Welsh and Scottish seats, which of course have two layers of directly elected representation at legislative level, on top of elected councillors, whereas England only has one legislative representation. This would mean that a Scottish MP has less to do in Westminster than an English one, as (say) campaigners about the environment wanting the government to ban (say) diesel cars would go to Holyrood instead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Btw I take no pleasure in being right about Corbyn and the failure of Corbyns labour party.

You might not.....but I most certainly do...

Those who have known me on this website for many years know of my two pet hates, so a mixture of those would bring a scenario into play of the Vivarail Class 230 "old lamps for new" project being headed by Jeremy Corbyn...

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You might not.....but I most certainly do...

Those who have known me on this website for many years know of my two pet hates, so a mixture of those would bring a scenario into play of the Vivarail Class 230 "old lamps for new" project being headed by Jeremy Corbyn...

I think DarloRich is conflicted (as are a few of us who are traditionally Labour in the more moderate sense rather than the hard left, pseudo Marxist way). We all knew that Corbyn was the wrong man and that the whole approach of the campaign was wrong. It was a 6 week car crash though in reality, it's been a wreck since the unions picked the wrong Miliband.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I think DarloRich is conflicted (as are a few of us who are traditionally Labour in the more moderate sense rather than the hard left, pseudo Marxist way). We all knew that Corbyn was the wrong man and that the whole approach of the campaign was wrong. It was a 6 week car crash though in reality, it's been a wreck since the unions picked the wrong Miliband.

That would be, in my view, a short-termist strategy, in the long run surrendering the country to hard-right extremists as people want change, what got Trump into power.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That would be, in my view, a short-termist strategy, in the long run surrendering the country to hard-right extremists as people want change, what got Trump into power.

Not certain what you mean. I wasn’t advocating a strategy

 

[Howardh]

I like having my "own" MP, I dislike the FPTP situation. The German system could work, and as we are supposed to reduce the number of MP's to 600 rather than 650, there's a chance to look at the size of the constituencies and how to work in that German system. But the Tories won't even consider any system that could lose them power so we are stuck with this until 2024 at the earliest.

 

[SteveP29]

For me personally? Lower rents and the rental market being less skewed in the landlord's favour in general.

Pfft, good luck with that

I'll be disappointed if rents aren't lower (in real terms) within 5 years of FoM ending.

Prepare for disappointment

The single most unpopular opposition leader with a woeful record on dealing with anti-semitism, etc

How many news reports have you seen about anti- semitism since December 12th?
Thought not

I'm not convinced immigration is needed, not on a large scale.

That pension you've paid into, that needs constant immigration to keep the funds topped up, ESPECIALLY as there's more and more pensioners to keep paying pensions to

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That pension you've paid into, that needs constant immigration to keep the funds topped up, ESPECIALLY as there's more and more pensioners to keep paying pensions to

Am I in an unusual situation as a 74 year old who pays quite an amount of Income Tax on my annual total pension package?

 

[furnessvale]

Am I in an unusual situation as a 74 year old who pays quite an amount of Income Tax on my annual total pension package?

You are not on your own, but given the current level of tax free allowance the phrase "quite an amount" needs to be individually assessed.

 

[TrafficEng]

How many news reports have you seen about anti- semitism since December 12th?
Thought not

How about this one, dated December 13th?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-jewish-vote-corbyn-resignation-a9244871.html

When Ken Livingstone is saying JC got it wrong then you know it isn't some kind of far-right/Neocon conspiracy against the sainted one.

That pension you've paid into, that needs constant immigration to keep the funds topped up, ESPECIALLY as there's more and more pensioners to keep paying pensions to

I'm not sure whether this comment demonstrates you don't understand how pensions work, or that you do understand but have intentionally conflated different issues.

Anyway, to see if I understand correctly, are you suggesting that the solution to the problem of a growing population of people living for longer (and therefore needing more money to keep them in old age) is to further increase the population of people who will in turn live for longer and need even more money to keep them in old age?

It seems like there might be a flaw in that plan.

The alternative (and more realistic) strategy is that people will need to work for more years of their adult life, that more of what they earn is invested in pensions, and that people stop expecting someone else to fully fund their retirement. That strategy is already being implemented.

 

[Senex]

Surely the answer is STV? It means larger constituencies but they'll be multi-member (so the workload shouldn't be unmanageable), you'll still have the link to a person you can go to moan raise concerns with and actually you're more likely to have an MP who you actually voted for to talk to and represent you.

Is it better to have small single-member constituencies where, whatever the voting system, a very large proportion of the voters are likely to find themselves with an MP with whose views they disagree pretty totally (especially with the extremist big parties we now have), or large constituencies with perhaps half a dozen members elected by STV where the great majority of voters should find at least one MP they feel reasonably represents them? The defenders of the present British wsay of doing things argue for the small constituency and the personal connection with the MP, but how many people have ever met (or even heard in the flesh) their MP and how many MPs genuinely come from and really represent the area and interests of their constituency? My own preference is strongly for STV and the larger constituencies.

 

[The Ham]

Is it better to have small single-member constituencies where, whatever the voting system, a very large proportion of the voters are likely to find themselves with an MP with whose views they disagree pretty totally (especially with the extremist big parties we now have), or large constituencies with perhaps half a dozen members elected by STV where the great majority of voters should find at least one MP they feel reasonably represents them? The defenders of the present British wsay of doing things argue for the small constituency and the personal connection with the MP, but how many people have ever met (or even heard in the flesh) their MP and how many MPs genuinely come from and really represent the area and interests of their constituency? My own preference is strongly for STV and the larger constituencies.

I've met mine a few times, they are active in the local area, grew up in the place I live and although they live in another settlement within the constituency they make an effort to have times when they'll be in a pub (the pub regularly changes and they appear to cover a lot of the pubs within the area) and people can come and talk to them about anything.

They also take part in the hustings which take place which allow some of the 75,000 people who can vote for them to hear them speak.

As such anyone who hasn't met/heard them it'll be more down to their choice not to, rather than the ability to do so. (Although I'm not so naive to believe that even so many people actually have, especially given the numbers of people and the limited scope for that many people to actual see them in the ~5 years since they became an MP).

 

[Esker-pades]

Is it better to have small single-member constituencies where, whatever the voting system, a very large proportion of the voters are likely to find themselves with an MP with whose views they disagree pretty totally (especially with the extremist big parties we now have), or large constituencies with perhaps half a dozen members elected by STV where the great majority of voters should find at least one MP they feel reasonably represents them? The defenders of the present British wsay of doing things argue for the small constituency and the personal connection with the MP, but how many people have ever met (or even heard in the flesh) their MP and how many MPs genuinely come from and really represent the area and interests of their constituency? My own preference is strongly for STV and the larger constituencies.

Perhaps the Additional Member System is what you're after. It keeps local MPs and representation, but has additional seats allocated to parties whos share of the vote was much higher than the number of seats they got.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps the Additional Member System is what you're after. It keeps local MPs and representation, but has additional seats allocated to parties whos share of the vote was much higher than the number of seats they got.

Can you see this happening at any time in the near future?

 

[Esker-pades]

Can you see this happening at any time in the near future?

Nope. There's no insentive for winners to change the system that they have won under.