The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[radamfi]

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.

And how much credibility did BNP get? Where are the BNP now?

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.

Because of FPTP, the Conservatives had very little choice of parties to work with. In countries with PR you are more likely to get a rainbow of parties elected where you are more likely to find a coalition partner that you can work with. For example, it is common in the Netherlands and Germany to have "grand coalitions" of the major centre-left and centre-right parties.

There is obviously dissatisfaction with the FPTP system and there are many people like me who crave a fairer system. Are there many voters who lament having a PR system and wish they had the British or American system? Probably not as many. If PR is unsuitable for the UK parliament, why is it fine for the Scottish Parliament and for the Welsh and London Assemblies?

 

[underbank]

If PR is unsuitable for the UK parliament, why is it fine for the Scottish Parliament and for the Welsh and London Assemblies?

Not the same though is it? Both Scotland and Wales have a common enemy - England and the UK Parliament. There are also many political aspects that are outside the scope of the Scottish/Welsh Parliaments, i.e. which are decided by the UK Parliament.

 

[radamfi]

Not the same though is it? Both Scotland and Wales have a common enemy - England and the UK Parliament. There are also many political aspects that are outside the scope of the Scottish/Welsh Parliaments, i.e. which are decided by the UK Parliament.

But how does that explain the appropriateness or otherwise of the voting systems? If FPTP is good enough for the UK Parliament, why wasn't it imposed on Scotland and Wales? It was the UK Parliament that decided the voting system. Also, why did Scotland abandon FPTP for local elections if it is OK for local elections in England and Wales?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Not the same though is it? Both Scotland and Wales have a common enemy - England and the UK Parliament.

I'd disagree with that. I don't think that PC can be compared with the SNP in that context at all (although they like to think they are the same) Without checking I think that PC's vote went down slightly....independence was mentioned by PC more explicitly this time and it didn't do them any good.

 

[Enthusiast]

It is very unwise to tell people you don't know what will or will not happen to their lives. Don't do it.

I did nothing of the sort. I'd already been told what had supposedly happened. I simply disagreed with the interpretation and the forecast outcome. I think a number of people with a reasonable grasp on reality may have reached the same conclusions. Sorry if it doesn't fit.

Bit of a goal post move for Brexit that! From overwhelming positives to at least it won't ruin lives!

I didn't suggest that "not ruining lives" was the very best that would be achieved. I was responding to somebody who suggested that their life had been ruined. No move of the goal posts at all.

 

[adrock1976]

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.

Regarding Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all three of those non-EU members were once part of the British Empire before they became "independent" again.

The reason why I have put "independent" in quotation marks is because (I'm unsure if New Zealand has already left the Commonwealth, as within the last few years I believe there were moves to change the flag) as well as being part of the Commonwealth, their elected representatives in their parliaments still pledge allegiance to the British Monarch. Perhaps something that could be abolished as it is the electorate that the parliament members should be pledging allegiance to?

 

[Spamcan81]

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

In which case you would be a fool. I voted remain, my partner voted leave. Have we ignored each other since? No we haven't. In fact last week we got married.

 

[nlogax]

In fact last week we got married.

Congrats!

 

[EM2]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ervatives-support-britain-first-a9252201.html
Britain First urges supporters to join Conservative Party ‘to make Boris Johnson’s leadership more secure’

Far-right Britain First is urging its supporters to join the Conservative Party in order to “make Boris Johnson’s leadership more secure”.
The extremist group, whose leaders were jailed last year, sent an email to subscribers claiming “thousands” of its activists were becoming members of the Tories.
It came after Mr Johnson was endorsed by Tommy Robinson and garnered public support from other far-right figures.
“If you haven’t joined the Conservative Party yet, we urge you to do so immediately, to make Boris Johnson’s leadership more secure,” Britain First said in an email sent on Wednesday.
“Senior Britain First officials and rank-and-file members have been receiving their Conservative membership cards in the post.
...
Britain First is the latest far-right group to endorse the prime minister, who has earned support among nationalists for his pledge to “get Brexit done” and comments comparing Muslim women to letterboxes.
Tommy Robinson declared that “everyone should vote for Boris Johnson” in the election and posed wearing a mask of the prime minister’s face as the results came in.
The English Defence League founder previously called on his followers to “back Boris” and characterised him as a champion “for the people” versus “traitors in parliament”.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This meme is currently going around amongst various Labour social media groups purportedly demonstrating how Labour does really well under very left wing leadership.

I don't think I need to point out the obvious flaws in the choice of statistics in it

If people unquestioningly believe this stuff, then I guess Boris is safely PM for the next 20 years or so ;-(

 

[Cowley]

In which case you would be a fool. I voted remain, my partner voted leave. Have we ignored each other since? No we haven't. In fact last week we got married.

That’s lovely. Congratulations.

 

[TheBigD]

This meme is currently going around amongst various Labour social media groups purportedly demonstrating how Labour does really well under very left wing leadership.

I don't think I need to point out the obvious flaws in the choice of statistics in it

If people unquestioningly believe this stuff, then I guess Boris is safely PM for the next 20 years or so ;-(

View attachment 71726

Just like the Democrats in the USA. Parroting the Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump and ignoring the electoral college.

Incidentally you had to go back 28 years to find a Democrat that lost to a bigger number of electoral college votes than Clinton (1988 Michael Dukakis)

 

[DerekC]

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.

I have just read the Supreme Court judgement - which is surprisingly short and easy to understand. It doesn't comment on whether the monarch should or shouldn't follow advice. In fact it says:

It is not suggested in these appeals that Her Majesty was other than obliged by constitutional convention to accept that advice. In the circumstances, we express no view on that matter.

. It concludes that the Order in Council which gave effect to the prorogation is not a "proceeding in Parliament", is therefore not subject to Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688 and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Order in Council was based on unlawful advice and is therefore null and void. So there is no change in the monarch's position. In fact the worry would have been if the judgement had gone the other way, because future PMs could have given partisan advice which the monarch would have no choice but to comply with and the courts would have no power to challenge.

 

[Esker-pades]

I did nothing of the sort. I'd already been told what had supposedly happened. I simply disagreed with the interpretation and the forecast outcome. I think a number of people with a reasonable grasp on reality may have reached the same conclusions. Sorry if it doesn't fit.

This is what you said earlier that prompted my comment:

Your life has not been ruined or destroyed. You're being excessively melodramatic. You've simply got to amend your plans.

 

[JamesT]

Regarding Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, all three of those non-EU members were once part of the British Empire before they became "independent" again.

The reason why I have put "independent" in quotation marks is because (I'm unsure if New Zealand has already left the Commonwealth, as within the last few years I believe there were moves to change the flag) as well as being part of the Commonwealth, their elected representatives in their parliaments still pledge allegiance to the British Monarch. Perhaps something that could be abolished as it is the electorate that the parliament members should be pledging allegiance to?

Technically they’re not pledging allegiance to the British monarch. They’re pledging allegiance to the monarch of their own country, just that happens to be Elizabeth II who is also our monarch.

Commonwealth membership doesn’t imply being ruled from London, the former members of the Empire are independent states with their own laws and governments, most Commonwealth members don’t have the Queen as their head of state.

 

[Peter Kelford]

And how much credibility did BNP get? Where are the BNP now?

They were the party with the least votes this election, at 510.

 

[Comstock]

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.

OK, very briefly. Nobody is being "got rid of".

1) Everyone vaguely sensible on my side of the debate thinks EU workers already here should have the right to stay indefinitely. Personally I think we should be encouraging those already here to take British citizenship if they want it.

2) No one vaguely sensible on my side of the debate is saying "no immigration at all". Even UKIP are only calling for zero *net* migration. Around 300,000 people leave the UK every year, so that leaves considerable scope for filling vacancies in those sectors without the need for an immigration free for all.

3) In the long term we should be aiming to be self sufficicent as far as possible, but for truly vital sectors like health and social care we could and should make exceptions.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

To me that's democracy. It's probably less dangerous for these more extreme parties to have some representation than to be festering on the outside, where as Farage has shown a sense of martyrdom can be a powerful motivator of support. None of the far-right parties that has got any candidates elected has managed to lever itself into positions of significant power for any great length of time.

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.

But that happened under FPTP!

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.

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. ​

 

[Kingspanner]

In the long term we should be aiming to be self sufficicent as far as possible

Why? This isn't self evident at all. On the contrary, Britain spent decades exporting talent all over the world, especially in engineering, and has benefitted by importing skills from other places, not least because there is strength in diversity. "Self-sufficiency" is a recipe for insular boring whiteness.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In which case you would be a fool. I voted remain, my partner voted leave. Have we ignored each other since? No we haven't. In fact last week we got married.

Congratulations - hope married bliss ensues

OK, very briefly. Nobody is being "got rid of".

1) Everyone vaguely sensible on my side of the debate thinks EU workers already here should have the right to stay indefinitely. Personally I think we should be encouraging those already here to take British citizenship if they want it.

2) No one vaguely sensible on my side of the debate is saying "no immigration at all". Even UKIP are only calling for zero *net* migration. Around 300,000 people leave the UK every year, so that leaves considerable scope for filling vacancies in those sectors without the need for an immigration free for all

Indeed, that is the picture as its been explained (so it will disappoint the racists) in that people who are here will have the ability to remain and that, going forward, there will be managed migration that Boris mentioned as the "brightest and best". However, the reality is that they will still need workers in care homes, agriculture etc.

 

[radamfi]

There will still be unlimited EU migration because all you have to do is complete some paperwork. At least that is what we keep being told.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There will still be unlimited EU migration because all you have to do is complete some paperwork. At least that is what we keep being told.

No, that's not what you're being told. We all know that the Tories are having a points based system (it's been mentioned enough) and time limited visas.

 

[radamfi]

No, that's not what you're being told. We all know that the Tories are having a points based system (it's been mentioned enough) and time limited visas.

underbank said there was no need to worry about losing free movement because all you have to do is fill in a form.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

underbank said there was no need to worry about losing free movement because all you have to do is fill in a form.

In fairness, that's not what he said

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.

He pointed out that losing free movement will not preclude people from studying abroad. We welcome a lot of non EU students to the UK (a good revenue stream) and same with other countries welcoming ours. It does require the securing of a visa but with reputable educational establishments, that should not be an issue.

My sister and her family emigrated 10 years ago. You don't generally just up and leave so the process of getting a visa took a few months but it wasn't on the critical path. They were sponsored by his (her partner's) prospective employer and he met the criteria for a skill they needed. He's a lorry driver. Once there, he could work (she couldn't) until they obtained residency but whilst it's a bit of paperwork, it really wasn't that onerous.

Granted, the loss of freedom of movement means that you can't just up and leave at the drop of a hat and live/work/study in another country. However, most people don't generally do that.

 

[Spamcan81]

Congrats!

Thanks.

 

[Spamcan81]

That’s lovely. Congratulations.

Thanks.

 

[edwin_m]

Why? This isn't self evident at all. On the contrary, Britain spent decades exporting talent all over the world, especially in engineering, and has benefitted by importing skills from other places, not least because there is strength in diversity. "Self-sufficiency" is a recipe for insular boring whiteness.

In my experience Britain is now a net importer of engineers. We don't produce enough and the industry has large numbers of graduates from other EU countries (who I have to say are extremely competent) working in its UK offices. If loss of free movement means these people leave and/or replacements find working in the UK more difficult or less welcoming, then with modern technology they can do the work elsewhere with corresponding loss to the UK skill base and balance of payments. Some projects are likely to move wholesale to other countries with the remaining engineers in the UK no longer involved - particularly if there are hindrances to business travel between countries.

This effect will far outweigh any benefit to the industry from new trading agreements with other countries. In my experience doing work in the UK on projects for the sort of distant countries the government is eyeing is only practical and cost-effective for specialist skills that those countries can't supply themselves. That happens pretty smoothly today when needed, with EU membership not acting as an impediment.

 

[AlterEgo]

The worthless Independent Group for Change have wound themselves up and flushed themselves down the toilet. Goodbye!

https://voteforchange.uk/letter-to-...bry-following-our-management-council-meeting/

 

[greyman42]

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.

Regarding not being racist, it might be best to wait for the findings of the EHRC.

 

[Jordan Adam]

The worthless Independent Group for Change have wound themselves up and flushed themselves down the toilet. Goodbye!

https://voteforchange.uk/letter-to-...bry-following-our-management-council-meeting/

Hardly a surprised. Much like the other one issue parties such as the Brexit Party, UKIP and other extremist movements they don't really have any purpose that makes them appeal on a wider scale.