U.K General Election

[Modus.Ponens]

There is only one explanation for the rise of UKIP in the UK. And it's the same reason behind the rise of Marine Le Pen's party, and the far right wing party in the Netherlands (even though I recon that the UKIP is very different from these).

"Walter Benjamin’s old thesis that behind every rise of fascism there is a failed [leftist] revolution not only still holds today, but is perhaps more pertinent than ever." Slavoj Zizek

[Dhammanando]

There is only one explanation for the rise of UKIP in the UK. And it's the same reason behind the rise of Marine Le Pen's party, and the far right wing party in the Netherlands (even though I recon that the UKIP is very different from these).

"Walter Benjamin’s old thesis that behind every rise of fascism there is a failed [leftist] revolution not only still holds today, but is perhaps more pertinent than ever." Slavoj Zizek

A “failed leftist revolution” in Britain?!? It must have been so dainty and ethereal a revolution that it passed by completely unnoticed.

[imagemarie]

Yes, indeed. There will be no revolution. Here.

Still, the NHS, and other hard won, tax funded social provisions, are gradually being demolished, or sold off to chums, under this Tory government. And likely, any combination of coalition government that will follow.

Don't be poor, a single-parent, disabled, mentally ill, or elderly working-class, for you will be truly screwed.
But that's okay. Because, I'm okay.


There's always charity, mind

[Modus.Ponens]

There is only one explanation for the rise of UKIP in the UK. And it's the same reason behind the rise of Marine Le Pen's party, and the far right wing party in the Netherlands (even though I recon that the UKIP is very different from these).

"Walter Benjamin’s old thesis that behind every rise of fascism there is a failed [leftist] revolution not only still holds today, but is perhaps more pertinent than ever." Slavoj Zizek

A “failed leftist revolution” in Britain?!? It must have been so dainty and ethereal a revolution that it passed by completely unnoticed.

Bhante,

I rather not continue this discussion, as it would derrail the thread. I shouldn't have posted in the first place!

[Kim OHara]

xkcd's take on the election?




Kim

[Sam Vara]

xkcd's take on the election?




Kim

Not quite constitutionally accurate, in that we won't as far as I know be given a vote on who occupies the throne. But the sentiment may be appropriate, given the constitutional problem that we are likely to face with some form of minority government.

[Cittasanto]

I'm really not sure at the moment! I don't trust the Tories with public services, but then I don't trust Labour with the economy. Lib Dems seem to have lost a lot of credibility, UKIP have some dodgy candidates and policies, Greens don't seem to live in the real world, and so on.

I reckon it will be another coalition.

I think so as well, I think a Labour-SNP coalition is on the table.

How can the SNP swing the power in an English parliament?
Not that the UK election is within m voting sphere, but the main election model of first past the post is redundant. And the one time when voting for UK parliament seats was within my sphere I couldn't vote for specific people, only for a party which I found strange.

[Sam Vara]

How can the SNP swing the power in an English parliament?

There is no English parliament, but the SNP (or any other minority party at Westminster) could have an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of power by entering into one of three types of agreement with either Labour or the Conservatives. (Coalition, "supply and confidence" agreement, or ad hoc voting agreements).

As you say, this is one of the anomalies of the "first past the post" system, when it combines with the constituency structure and constitutional law and practice.

[Mr Man]

I'm sure there is a fair number of traditional labour supporters who wouldn't mind a labour govt. with SNP support as, aside from the nationalist element, they seem to be in line with traditional labour values.

[Sam Vara]

I'm sure there is a fair number of traditional labour supporters who wouldn't mind a labour govt. with SNP support as, aside from the nationalist element, they seem to be in line with traditional labour values.

Indeed. Despite his ruling out a formal deal with the SNP, Miliband has little to fear from them anyway. Many of their policies are quite close, and the SNP are extremely unlikely to allow the Conservatives back in by supporting a no confidence vote on Labour. It remains a strong possibility.

[mikenz66]

How can the SNP swing the power in an English parliament?

There is no English parliament, but the SNP (or any other minority party at Westminster) could have an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of power by entering into one of three types of agreement with either Labour or the Conservatives. (Coalition, "supply and confidence" agreement, or ad hoc voting agreements).

As you say, this is one of the anomalies of the "first past the post" system, when it combines with the constituency structure and constitutional law and practice.

Actually, a small party holding the balance of power is more common in proportional systems, such as in New Zealand. Now that we have proportional representation it is uncommon for a single party to have a majority. I think it has only happened once.

When we switched to proportional representation there was similar disquiet, and gloomy talk of "disproportionate power". However, it has not really turned out that way. The large party in a coalition will usually negotiate an agreement that prevents the small party(s) from exercising undue influence. For example, they will agree in advance to support important votes, in exchange for some compromises in certain areas.

Having got used to this, I feel like the most negative outcome of an election is when one party is able to form a government on its own (i.e. the typical first-past-the-post outcome). In that case there is no need for the large party to negotiate and take into account alternative viewpoints.


Mike

[mikenz66]

PS, I heard an interesting interview with a Scottish journalist yesterday. As he said the talk from the Labour and Conservative parties, and London-based journalists, bemoaning the possibility of the SNP holding the balance, and the implication that that was an unacceptable outcome is blatantly undemocratic. A key feature of democracy is that the participants respect the outcome of elections.
Elites not accepting the outcome of a democratic process is a third-world reaction, and appears to be one of the reasons why countries like Thailand have difficulty maintaining a democracy.


Mike

[Sam Vara]

How can the SNP swing the power in an English parliament?

There is no English parliament, but the SNP (or any other minority party at Westminster) could have an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of power by entering into one of three types of agreement with either Labour or the Conservatives. (Coalition, "supply and confidence" agreement, or ad hoc voting agreements).

As you say, this is one of the anomalies of the "first past the post" system, when it combines with the constituency structure and constitutional law and practice.

Actually, a small party holding the balance of power is more common in proportional systems, such as in New Zealand. Now that we have proportional representation it is uncommon for a single party to have a majority. I think it has only happened once.

When we switched to proportional representation there was similar disquiet, and gloomy talk of "disproportionate power". However, it has not really turned out that way. The large party in a coalition will usually negotiate an agreement that prevents the small party(s) from exercising undue influence. For example, they will agree in advance to support important votes, in exchange for some compromises in certain areas.

Having got used to this, I feel like the most negative outcome of an election is when one party is able to form a government on its own (i.e. the typical first-past-the-post outcome). In that case there is no need for the large party to negotiate and take into account alternative viewpoints.


Mike

Yes, you are right, of course. I meant compared to what we are used to in the UK. Compared to the normal single-party dictatorship for the parliamentary term that we are used to in the UK (and presumably you had in NZ?) the current circumstances of FPTP and small constituencies means that a hung parliament gives huge power to the lucky minorities.

[Sam Vara]

PS, I heard an interesting interview with a Scottish journalist yesterday. As he said the talk from the Labour and Conservative parties, and London-based journalists, bemoaning the possibility of the SNP holding the balance, and the implication that that was an unacceptable outcome is blatantly undemocratic. A key feature of democracy is that the participants respect the outcome of elections.
Elites not accepting the outcome of a democratic process is a third-world reaction, and appears to be one of the reasons why countries like Thailand have difficulty maintaining a democracy.


Mike

Yes, more of that talk is currently from the Conservatives. Here's an interesting polemic from a left-of-centre journalist on the possible outcomes:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ent-labour

The labour leader has ruled out a formal pact with the Scots Nats, but as I said above he has little to fear - they would support him anyway.

[Dhammanando]

A nice video explaining it all to foreigners.

phpBB .