Discussion: The UK Election Thread

[regwec]

Well, Labour have won the next election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169

Under the current constituent boundaries, they get the equivalent of 10% of the vote before the polls even open. Any wonder they voted against making the system democratic?

[darkdaz]

The boundary changes were not thought up to make the system more democratic. The conservatives just wanted to swing the advantage the other way so that they would get a added chance of gaining more MPs at the next election while massively reducing those for the Liberal Democrats.

If they were interested in making the system more democratic they would not have blocked the Liberals attempts to make the House of Lords elected or watered down the PR Referendum.

[chamber-music]

The unelected house of lords is just embarrassing now. For a hundred years they have been talking about making the upper house elected and they still can't do it. Too many selfish scumbags who don't want to give up power or the money they can collect in expenses.

[regwec]

Originally Posted by darkdaz

The boundary changes were not thought up to make the system more democratic. The conservatives just wanted to swing the advantage the other way so that they would get a added chance of gaining more MPs at the next election while massively reducing those for the Liberal Democrats.

If they were interested in making the system more democratic they would not have blocked the Liberals attempts to make the House of Lords elected or watered down the PR Referendum.

No, that's inaccurate. Under the current boundaries, Labour start any election with a 7-11% advantage, i.e. Labour can form a majority government on less than 40% of the vote, and the Conservatives have to be leading Labour by a ratio of about 45%/35% to get a majority of 1.

Of course the Conservatives have a self interest in making the system more balanced, but on this they happen to be right. It is not a matter of getting an "added chance" or "swinging the advantage", it is a matter of ensuring that each constituency has the same number of voters in it, so the same number of votes gives either main party the same number of seats.

I agree that the Lords needs to be reformed- I favour eight year terms and a prohibition of party affiliations. But the Lib Dems blocking boundary reform in a petty act of vengeance now means that neither House will be a representative body by the next election. They did that to ensure that Labour is the biggest party, so that they can form another coalition and dictate British political policy for another five years, despite their tiny and diminishing share of the vote.

It is an outrage. I am not making a Conservatives v Labour v Lib Dems argument here- I am objecting to the fact that two of the parties have colluded so that your/your parents' votes are worth less, and the result of the next election is a foregone conclusion. You tend to get that in places like Zimbabwe and Russia.

We could have a solution in 2015 where UKIP has a bigger share of the popular vote than the Lib Dems, but UKIP will have no MPs while the Lib Dems effectively dictate policy by riding Labour's coat tales.

[chamber-music]

Thats politics for you. Self serving douchebags.

[enterthemadness]

I found out a few days ago, that there is a Libertarian Party of the UK founded in 2008.


...


I expect them to have as much MSM success as the Libertarian Party here.