Jump to content

UK Politics: Post-May Edition


mormont

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Leap said:

Ugh. Well, that's pretty sickening. I suppose good news is soft Brexit. I strongly hope and semi-believe that DUP's social conservatism will not leak into law.

I'd suspect the DUP would probably be content with their social conservative policies like abortion or gay marriage being illegal continuing to apply in Northern Ireland, exporting those policies to the rest of the UK probably isn't a priority for them. At least, I'm hoping they're not going to have too much influence on policy (excepting possibly Brexit). I guess we'll have to wait to see whether the Queen's Speech starts with a declaration that the Pope is the Antichrist to really see how much influence they have.

Nuttall's resigning. Does this mean Farage is coming back like a bad smell?

I forget where it was, but I saw someone pointing out that all election campaigns end with Farage either becoming UKIP leader or stepping down as UKIP leader, sometimes both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth noting that Ruth Davidson, the head of the Scottish Conservatives who is getting married to her girlfriend in a few months, has apparently already secured a promise from May that the DUP's anti-gay policies will not be extended to the rest of the UK.

Quote

I saw someone on Twitter saying that Sinn Fein are claiming that it would be against the Good Friday Agreement to allow the DUP into government

 

It's certainly one interpretation. The GFA was meant to allow Northern Ireland to determine it's own future without Westminster interference. If the NI Assembly remains dissolved and the DUP effectively running Northern Ireland as part of direct rule, that's a massive violation of at least the spirit of the deal.

Rather bizarrely, this has resulted in a lot of people urging Sinn Fein to take up their seats in Westminster (and the old argument about them accepting the GFA and acknowledging they are part of the UK in 1998 but not taking up their seats is a self-contradictory position) to counter this threat, which I believe would also torpedo the deal (assuming Sinn Fein would support Labour/SNP/LibDems, which is a bit of an unholy alliance) altogether. That remains highly improbable, but with the way things are going now, nothing can be ruled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Rather bizarrely, this has resulted in a lot of people urging Sinn Fein to take up their seats in Westminster 

Would it even matter? I thought together the Tories and DUP have enough for a majority? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Castel said:

Would it even matter? I thought together the Tories and DUP have enough for a majority? 

 

Yes, but barely. Nobody can miss a vote without risking defeat for the coalition. And by-elections can erase that majority fast. That's why May wanted a larger majority and called these elections. With Sinn Fein missing, the chance of the coalition losing a vote is a lot smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Castel said:

Would it even matter? I thought together the Tories and DUP have enough for a majority? 

Without Sinn Fein it's 328-314. With Sinn Fein it's 328-321. One has small margin for error - the other has nearly none.

With reference to the GFA, there's the loophole that (so far as I know) this isn't a formal coalition - it's confidence and supply, so the DUP are supporting a minority Westminster Government without actually being part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have voted after all, Labour won by just 20 votes, although as a local MP perhaps the newly elected one will prove good at her job.

Mays leadership and her stance on Brexit complete put me off voting for the Tory candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Dad always told me that those people who can't be bothered to vote or spoil their ballot paper, don't have the right to have an opinion let alone complain about the results until the next election.   This is a bit harsh, but in many ways I agree with him.   You can't change the result if you don't vote.   If all the non voters voted things could be very different.  at the very least the politicians won't be able to afford to ignore any groups of people, due to the possibility of being punished at the ballot box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Pebble said:

My Dad always told me that those people who can't be bothered to vote or spoil their ballot paper, don't have the right to have an opinion let alone complain about the results until the next election.   This is a bit harsh, but in many ways I agree with him.   You can't change the result if you don't vote.   If all the non voters voted things could be very different.  at the very least the politicians won't be able to afford to ignore any groups of people, due to the possibility of being punished at the ballot box.

Your dad's wrong.

A spoiled ballot is a perfectly valid protest vote; and nothing about not voting removes the right to hold an opinion.

 

I don't have much sympathy for those who simply can't be bothered to vote; but there are many, valid reasons for feeling disenfranchised or disillussioned, or not wanting to validate a process you disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pebble said:

He agrees with the spoiled ballot part.

 

But if you don't vote or spoil your ballot your opinion can be safely ignored by politicians trying to get votes or stop you voting elsewhere.

Tbf your opinion can be safely ignored in other circumstances too, i.e. if you at a tribal voter who never switches because of what the parties do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pebble said:

He agrees with the spoiled ballot part.

 

But if you don't vote or spoil your ballot your opinion can be safely ignored by politicians trying to get votes or stop you voting elsewhere.

Sorry, you did say that he thinks those who spoil their ballot don't have the right to an opinion.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the "none of the above" option specifically; and I think that anyone who is motivated enough to vote to make the point that they are not represented deserve their voices heard - though I agree that the current system feels free to just ignore them... until someone appeals to them and gets them voting.

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Tbf your opinion can be safely ignored in other circumstances too, i.e. if you at a tribal voter who never switches because of what the parties do.


Or, of course, anyone voting for a party/individual with no realistic chance of winning the seat - wheather that's Green vote in Leeds, or a BNP vote in... well, anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think maybe I wasn't clear enough in how I wrote it at first.   I did mean can't be bother to Vote  or can't be bothered to spoil their ballot.  (did not think I needed to write can't be bothered twice too- guess I'm lazy when it comes to typing)

 

I would also agree and prefer a none of the above option.  We had record (for a long time anyway) levels of voter turnout this time,  which is probably the best thing to come out of this election, but I do wonder what would of been the result with mandatory voting.   - Although I'm not sure I agree with mandatory voting either especially with no none of the above option.     However maybe the high turnout this time and just how close a lot of the results are will encourage more people to vote next time  (In 6-9 months time - my prediction)

 

 

with the current system, there are a lot of people who's vote can be effectively ignored.   If your living in a very safe seat for example.   although at least then there is a record of the popular vote, which can give warning to the government,  although its not very effective.

 

I would so much prefer a type of proportional voting system, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I still have one silly question, that has bothered me since the election. What's that thing about the ribbon the candidates wore when the results were announced? I guess it shows which party they represented, butIMHO it looked like they just won the best (fill in livestock of your choice) on a barn fair.

19 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Personally, I'm a big fan of the "none of the above" option specifically; and I think that anyone who is motivated enough to vote to make the point that they are not represented deserve their voices heard - though I agree that the current system feels free to just ignore them... until someone appeals to them and gets them voting.

Hum, couldn't you just cast a vote for the monster loony raving party. That would at least be my option with the mere intent to get their vote count above UKIP's in that constituency.

 

23 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

your opinion can be safely ignored in other circumstances too, i.e. if you at a tribal voter who never switches because of what the parties do.

Hum, tribal voters' opinions can be ignored? Didn't you cheer at the prospect of Labour getting annihilated after May called the snap election, and didn't you voice your discontent about the Tories rather poor electoral performance, using the pronoun "we". Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a tribal voter, and thus can your opinion be safely ignored, too?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Notone said:

 

Hum, tribal voters' opinions can be ignored? Didn't you cheer at the prospect of Labour getting annihilated after May called the snap election, and didn't you voice your discontent about the Tories rather poor electoral performance, using the pronoun "we". Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a tribal voter, and thus can your opinion be safely ignored, too?

 

No.

Who is Hum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Notone said:

Hum, couldn't you just cast a vote for the monster loony raving party.

Not in the majority of cases, no. They put up very few candidates, only in high-profile constituencies where there will be guaranteed press coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Notone said:

Oh, I still have one silly question, that has bothered me since the election. What's that thing about the ribbon the candidates wore when the results were announced? I guess it shows which party they represented, butIMHO it looked like they just won the best (fill in livestock of your choice) on a barn fair.

 

Most people don't have the option of voting for a minor party let alone a joke one.

 

  for example

I had the option of voting Conservative,  in safe conservative he won with a 61% share of the vote.  

Labor,

Lib Dem 

or UKIP

 

 

which does mean my personal views can be safely ignored by my non-local, local MP.   If we had a different Tory standing I may have considered voting for them.  Although to be honest they would have to be somewhat exceptional this time round to get me to vote Tory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but what becomes of the 2018 boundaries review with these election results?

A quick review of the history: In the early days of Cameron's coalition government, the then PM proposed to reduce the number of mps from 650 to 600. Cameron argued that the current boundaries benefited Labour as they could win majorities in elections wit less than 40% of the vote but the Conservatives needed to win much more to win a majority. Some like myself expressed concern that the Conservatives would gerrymander the boundaries to their benefit. 

The Lib Dems at the time supported the move in exchange for the Alternative vote referendum and an elected House of Lords. Withe the voters voting no on the referendum and certain Tories blocking any move for an elected House of Lords, the Lib Dems withdrew their support for the boundary review. And with the withdrawal of their support, The House of lords successfully passed an amendment that kicked the can down the road for the boundary changes to be postponed to 2018.

All of that was from what I could recall. Correct me if I was wrong in anything.

So with DUP influence, what becomes of those boundary changes and reduction of mps? Will they support the reduction of mps and the re-drawing of the lines? Maybe they will demand that the number of mps in Northern Ireland remains at 18 or to gerrymander their constituencies for unionist benefit and at the expense of Sinn Fein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pebble

Well, that kinda sucks. If it comforts you, proportional voting gives your more options, but not necessarily satisfaction.

I am somewhat unsure what to vote for. this year. Our election result is a bit of a foregone conclusion, unless something crazy happens, and my usual party of choice has been totally uninspiring. I will probably still vote Green (oh spoiler), but casting a vote for The Party (a joke party) is at least atm something I'd give some serious thought.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...