The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[underbank]

There are also a lot of young people, some of them currently too young to vote, who will be unable to work or study in the EU and will be very angry as a result.

Which isn't true. You don't know what will happen in the future. There may be agreements (like UK Unis currently have with Unis all over the World outside the EU) where students can go to study or work abroad. We've just been through the Uni Open days etc and been pretty impressed with all the foreign work/study options, and more surprised that most were outside the EU. Yes, a lot did the year of study or work in say Germany, which "may" be at risk, but plenty were offering work/study options in Canada, Australia, and the Far East, none of which are in the EU! I'm sure reciprocal agreements can be arranged. Our closest Uni has very strong links with China which sees huge numbers of Chinese students coming to study (and many stay to live/work after) at the University. My son liked the idea of a year in Canada and the Uni offering that were absolutely confident that the option would continue regardless of Brexit. I've also had a large number of clients who've gone to live and work in Canada and Australia/New Zealand. You don't need to be tied to a body like the EU to be able to work and study abroad - most countries have agreements where you can apply for visas etc. It just usually means a bit more admin/paperwork to get eligibility agreed, like already happens between the UK and countries outside the EU.

 

[Geezertronic]

I would never have children but I would disown them if they voted Leave.

Then it is probably a good job you don't and won't have children . You are invoking what I call Sith Law (yes, a Star Wars reference) where people are with you or they are against you, and there is no in-between for you. If you would disown someone for holding a different point of view, you must live a very blinkered and sheltered life

 

[edwin_m]

The Supreme Court said it was unlawful, not illegal.

You may think that's what the Supreme Court's job is but in doing so they have effectively ridden over the constitution. It's not a constitutional court.

Our constitution is "unwritten" (actually uncodified). Historically the monarch would have made their own decision and could have gone against the advice of the PM. However by custom and practice the situation has become that the monarch is obliged to obey the PM's "advice". Therefore that particular constitutional protection would have become useless without any Act of Parliament to declare it no longer applied. It seems to me that the court was entirely jusitified to go some way to restoring the original process. However it's now likely that these checks and balances will be declared illegal with no equivalent workable ones installed in their place.

Without this protection the PM effectively has the right to shut down Parliament at any time and for any reason or none. How would you feel if some future Corbyn-like character became PM and decided to take advantage of that?

 

[SteveP29]

Nah, it’s all off the top of my head! There has to be more I’ve forgotten!

Apologies for being so behind with the thread and going back 15 pages, but err, I smell BS

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That’s an interesting point.

Given the fact that most WW2 veterans are now well into their 90’s and current OAP’s are starting to become mainly “baby boomers,” who certainly had a lot of the benefits from society in their lives and now seem rather intent on pulling up the ladder behind them, will we see a large cohort of younger people with axes to grind against the older generation? (Deserved or not.)

Currently elections are pretty much decided by 50+ voters, I wonder if that could change in the future with a rising anger?

That works on the basis that people are fixed in their opinions over time. That just isn't the case. Remember that the same boomers are those who (in their 20s) voted positively to stay in the EEC in the mid 1970s. Or that a number of those who voted Tory in the 1980s were voting Labour 20 years later.

 

[Esker-pades]

The Supreme Court said it was unlawful, not illegal.

You may think that's what the Supreme Court's job is but in doing so they have effectively ridden over the constitution. It's not a constitutional court.

The court's judgment disagreed. In the summing up, Baroness Hale said that "the effects on the fundamentals of our constitution were extreme".

If the Supreme Court is not a 'constitutional court', which court is?

 

[Raul_Duke]

That works on the basis that people are fixed in their opinions over time. That just isn't the case. Remember that the same boomers are those who (in their 20s) voted positively to stay in the EEC in the mid 1970s. Or that a number of those who voted Tory in the 1980s were voting Labour 20 years later.

That’s a fair point.

I’m more referring to the sense of the older generation “pulling up the ladder,” behind them that wouldn’t have been as prevalent in the 70’s though.

 

[underbank]

That works on the basis that people are fixed in their opinions over time. That just isn't the case. Remember that the same boomers are those who (in their 20s) voted positively to stay in the EEC in the mid 1970s. Or that a number of those who voted Tory in the 1980s were voting Labour 20 years later.

Whilst I agree, the "EEC" that people voted for in the 70s is a very different entity to the EU which we've just voted to leave. The British people were never given the chance to vote to join the EU nor further EU integration. I suspect the politicians did it by stealth because they knew the voters didn't want to be part of the EU superstate, although would have been happy staying in the original form of the EEC.

 

[AlterEgo]

Our constitution is "unwritten" (actually uncodified). Historically the monarch would have made their own decision and could have gone against the advice of the PM. However by custom and practice the situation has become that the monarch is obliged to obey the PM's "advice". Therefore that particular constitutional protection would have become useless without any Act of Parliament to declare it no longer applied. It seems to me that the court was entirely jusitified to go some way to restoring the original process. However it's now likely that these checks and balances will be declared illegal with no equivalent workable ones installed in their place.

Without this protection the PM effectively has the right to shut down Parliament at any time and for any reason or none. How would you feel if some future Corbyn-like character became PM and decided to take advantage of that?

You are asking me whether I think that is common sense as opposed to whether that is actually what the law says. I refer you back to my initial post.

The judgement of the Supreme Court essentially says the monarch is at liberty to ignore bad or insincere advice, and sets a precedent which does quite the opposite to what you think.

 

[AlterEgo]

The court's judgment disagreed. In the summing up, Baroness Hale said that "the effects on the fundamentals of our constitution were extreme".

If the Supreme Court is not a 'constitutional court', which court is?

We don’t have a constitutional court! The Supreme Court of the UK cannot rule that any action or law set by Parliament is unconstitutional.

 

[edwin_m]

You are asking me whether I think that is common sense as opposed to whether that is actually what the law says. I refer you back to my initial post.

The judgement of the Supreme Court essentially says the monarch is at liberty to ignore bad or insincere advice, and sets a precedent which does quite the opposite to what you think.

We don’t have a constitutional court! The Supreme Court of the UK cannot rule that any action or law set by Parliament is unconstitutional.

The judgment said nothing about the role of the monarch. It said that the PM's advice to the monarch was unlawful. This might not matter so much if the monarch had the right to ignore it, but by convention they don't. And the court did not rule on any action or law set by Parliament, because there was no such action or law. If Parliament passes such a law then by your own reasoning the Supreme Court would be powerless to rule in any future similar situation, and we would be in the position where the PM can suspend Parliament at will. Are you happy with that?

 

[AlterEgo]

The judgment said nothing about the role of the monarch. It said that the PM's advice to the monarch was unlawful. This might not matter so much if the monarch had the right to ignore it, but by convention they don't. And the court did not rule on any action or law set by Parliament, because there was no such action or law. If Parliament passes such a law then by your own reasoning the Supreme Court would be powerless to rule in any future similar situation, and we would be in the position where the PM can suspend Parliament at will. Are you happy with that?

Again you’re asking me whether I think Boris should have been prevented - from an ethical perspective - from his endeavours in frustrating parliamentary process.

It’s obviously good he was himself frustrated in his actions. Given that only the monarch can prorogue Parliament, the substance of the judgement in declaring the advice unlawful was to protect the monarch from bad or insincere advice and effectively enshrine the monarch’s prerogative to ignore such advice. I do not think that point has hit home.

 

[edwin_m]

Again you’re asking me whether I think Boris should have been prevented - from an ethical perspective - from his endeavours in frustrating parliamentary process.

It’s obviously good he was himself frustrated in his actions. Given that only the monarch can prorogue Parliament, the substance of the judgement in declaring the advice unlawful was to protect the monarch from bad or insincere advice and effectively enshrine the monarch’s prerogative to ignore such advice. I do not think that point has hit home.

I'm glad you've effectively accepted my point that it's a bad precedent if the PM is allowed to suspend Parliament without good reason. But you've ignored my responses in #1001 in which I explained why the court doesn't change the role of the monarch and that its action is not, by your own definition, that of a constitutional court. You're just repeating your previous points rather than continuing the debate by responding to my refutation of those points. I see no merit in replying any further.

 

[DerekC]

The Supreme Court said it was unlawful, not illegal.

You are right - but that doesn't make it OK.

You may think that's what the Supreme Court's job is but in doing so they have effectively ridden over the constitution. It's not a constitutional court.

It would be interesting to know which part of the constitution you think they have ridden over. And who should decide on matters of constitutional principle, if not the Supreme Court.

 

[radamfi]

My son liked the idea of a year in Canada and the Uni offering that were absolutely confident that the option would continue regardless of Brexit.

Why would that have anything to do with Brexit?

You don't need to be tied to a body like the EU to be able to work and study abroad - most countries have agreements where you can apply for visas etc. It just usually means a bit more admin/paperwork to get eligibility agreed, like already happens between the UK and countries outside the EU.

So what's the point of free movement if all you have to do is to fill in some paperwork?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm glad you've effectively accepted my point that it's a bad precedent if the PM is allowed to suspend Parliament without good reason. But you've ignored my responses in #1001 in which I explained why the court doesn't change the role of the monarch and that its action is not, by your own definition, that of a constitutional court. You're just repeating your previous points rather than continuing the debate by responding to my refutation of those points. I see no merit in replying any further.

You have failed to notice that while you claim the monarch doesn’t have the right to ignore it, the Supreme Court decision means they do, in fact, have the right to ignore bad or unlawful advice. Only the monarch can prorogue Parliament under advice, and only the monarch can reinstate it, under advice.

The Supreme Court does not declare laws or actions unconstitutional; it cannot do that. The Court’s view was that suspending parliament was not actually parliamentary business and therefore not in violation of the Bill of Rights, but what many have failed to notice is that it does actually enshrine the role of the monarch’s prerogative to ignore bad or politically untruthful advice. It has set a precedent which may not be felt for some time.

 

[AlterEgo]

You are right - but that doesn't make it OK.

It would be interesting to know which part of the constitution you think they have ridden over. And who should decide on matters of constitutional principle, if not the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court did was decide that the monarch does not always have to make a decision if they do not agree with the advice, especially if it is bad or unlawful. This is all very well if you’re fortunate enough to have a benign monarch, but remember that English law is inductive and builds upon precedent. The consequences of effectively enshrining the monarch’s power to ignore the Prime Minister’s advice may be felt many years after we are dead; the key principle in the case dated from the late 17th century.

 

[DerekC]

Given the fact that most WW2 veterans are now well into their 90’s and current OAP’s are starting to become mainly “baby boomers,” who certainly had a lot of the benefits from society in their lives and now seem rather intent on pulling up the ladder behind them, will we see a large cohort of younger people with axes to grind against the older generation? (Deserved or not.)

Talking about a generation as "baby boomers" who are "pulling up the ladder behind them" is inclined to make this happen. I and most of my friends have been lucky enough to have been fully employed for all our working lives - but we have worked hard. And what are we doing with our savings? Giving as much as we can afford to our children and grandchildren, that's what.

Currently elections are pretty much decided by 50+ voters, I wonder if that could change in the future with a rising anger?

There is no justification for getting angry if you don't bother to vote. The fact that over-55s have a disproportionate impact is as much due to low turnout rates in the younger age group as to an ageing population. For instance the rate in the 18-24 group in 2005 was 37%. The rate on the over-75 group was 75%. (Can't find more recent figures just now).

 

[radamfi]

There is no justification for getting angry if you don't bother to vote.

Most people in Britain effectively have no vote because of the voting system.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is no justification for getting angry if you don't bother to vote.

This is a facile argument. There are many situations where abstaining from exercising your right to vote is morally consistent, and yes, you still get to complain.

In my safe Tory constituency I was faced between voting for:

- a party led by a complete liar and a charlatan which presided over damaging austerity
- a party led by Marxists and Trots, dull fantasists and full of student room debaters
- a party which said it would unilaterally ignore a referendum, the result of which I disagreed with but which I felt duty bound to uphold
- a party which would damage Britain with a no-deal Brexit

I would not vote for any of those things. A citizen has the right to do many things but he is not compelled to exercise all of his rights.

 

[mmh]

I'm pretty sure the smallest (by population) constituencies will be the very rural/island ones in the far North of Scotland - which have small populations because the population density in those areas is so tiny that any normal-sized (by population) constituency would have to cover an unmanageably large geographical area

Ynys Mon isn't even the smallest constituency in Wales, let alone Britain. Arfon (which is basically Bangor and Caernarfon) is the smallest (by electorate) in Wales and mainland Britain. Only two of the Scottish Island constituencies are smaller.

I don't think it's true that any of these constituencies are small to keep the geographical size down - Arfon is not big, and there are far bigger geographically ones in all of Wales, England and Scotland. More often than not they follow traditional or topographical boundaries.

 

[mmh]

Most people in Britain effectively have no vote because of the voting system.

This is clearly not true - did the election not show us that true "safe seats" are a lot rarer than they used to be?

 

[radamfi]

This is clearly not true - did the election not show us that true "safe seats" are a lot rarer than they used to be?

There are still a vast number of safe seats and if you don't support the top two parties at the last election your vote is extremely unlikely to count.

 

[mmh]

There are still a vast number of safe seats and if you don't support the top two parties at the last election your vote is extremely unlikely to count.

How does the number of SNP MPs equate with this theory?

 

[radamfi]

How does the number of SNP MPs equate with this theory?

Scotland since 2015 is an anomaly because of the 2014 independence vote. In England the theory holds very strongly.

 

[Peter Kelford]

This is a facile argument. There are many situations where abstaining from exercising your right to vote is morally consistent, and yes, you still get to complain.

In my safe Tory constituency I was faced between voting for:

- a party led by a complete liar and a charlatan which presided over damaging austerity
- a party led by Marxists and Trots, dull fantasists and full of student room debaters
- a party which said it would unilaterally ignore a referendum, the result of which I disagreed with but which I felt duty bound to uphold
- a party which would damage Britain with a no-deal Brexit

I would not vote for any of those things. A citizen has the right to do many things but he is not compelled to exercise all of his rights.

Out of them, Labour ticked the most boxes for me: not found by the courts to have committed a grave breach of confidence and trust, actually having a chance to win, having some statesmen in there, not being a racist. As for the stronger left-wing policies, he's unlikely to pass the majority anyway.

Scotland since 2015 is an anomaly because of the 2014 independence vote. In England the theory holds very strongly.

I would say that there is a very strong sense these days of a transitional government in Scotland.

 

[TrafficEng]

There are still a vast number of safe seats and if you don't support the top two parties at the last election your vote is extremely unlikely to count.

Someone being disappointed the candidate of their choice has little chance of winning is not the same as them "effectively hav[ing] no vote because of the voting system".

Not so long ago there were many very disappointed BNP voters. I think we'd all agree that FPTP's contribution to generally keeping minority parties out of positions of power can be a good thing.

On the other hand, PR failed us in allowing a BNP candidate to win a seat on the Greater London Assembly.

If you want an electoral system that fully represents everyone, you also need to be willing to accept the election of people whose policies you find very distasteful. Your view of people who voted for Brexit suggests there may be some difficulty with this.

 

[radamfi]

Someone being disappointed the candidate of their choice has little chance of winning is not the same as them "effectively hav[ing] no vote because of the voting system".

Not so long ago there were many very disappointed BNP voters. I think we'd all agree that FPTP's contribution to generally keeping minority parties out of positions of power can be a good thing.

On the other hand, PR failed us in allowing a BNP candidate to win a seat on the Greater London Assembly.

If you want an electoral system that fully represents everyone, you also need to be willing to accept the election of people whose policies you find very distasteful. Your view of people who voted for Brexit suggests there may be some difficulty with this.

It is extremely unlikely for a distasteful party to get 50% of the vote. In a PR system, the other parties can block that party getting power. So if we had PR, there would have been no need to worry about UKIP. But because we have FPTP, Cameron was worried about splitting the Tory vote. So we wouldn't have Brexit without FPTP.

 

[Spamcan81]

I'm not convinced immigration is needed, not on a large scale. It might be 'wanted' by the rich and powerful that own businesses, but that is not at all the same thing as 'needed'

Have you seen the number of non UK workers in the health and social care sectors? Get rid of them and the system will collapse.

 

[TrafficEng]

It is extremely unlikely for a distasteful party to get 50% of the vote. In a PR system, the other parties can block that party getting power.

They don't need to get 50%. In 2008 Barnbrook won his Assembly seat on 5.3% of the vote under the D'Hondt method, with a 5% threshold.

The other parties/candidates cannot block another party/candidate taking up their seat. Once the electoral system is decided the die is cast and everyone has to live with the results.

The issue isn't just about a party getting into power. Having a single candidate win adds credibility and influence to the party. They cannot be denied access to facilities, and have to be treated equally in terms of the benefits and privileges afforded to holders of that office.

So if we had PR, there would have been no need to worry about UKIP. But because we have FPTP, Cameron was worried about splitting the Tory vote. So we wouldn't have Brexit without FPTP.

Not so. With PR it is likely that coalition politics will be more common. In that situation a minor party can play 'kingmaker' and extract a very large price for doing so. I'd suggest the DUP in 2017 is a good example where just 10 MPs made all the difference, and had a disproportional impact on policy making.

According to some calculations, if PR had been used in the recent GE then the Brexit Party would have won around 10 seats. This is after the referendum had taken place and with the Conservatives being an avowed 'Leave' party. Those 10 Brexit Party MPs might have had the ability to give Boris the keys to Number 10, or denied him that opportunity. If you go back in time to 2015 and held the election with PR rules, then UKIP might have replaced the LibDems as a coalition partner of the Conservatives (instead of a Conservative majority) leading to exactly the same outcome vis-a-vis the referendum. And possibly with the Conservatives backing a Leave vote to keep their partner party happy.