COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Well, I'm following the UK election even if no one else in the USA is.

Tzara

Tzara

Continental
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Posts
7,609
Looks like another five years of Tory leadership. Maybe. You guys OK with that?

So, UKers, please explain to me how a hung parliament works. I've read things that suggest that Cameron could govern without a coalition with some of the minor parties, but that he'd be better off aligning with them, if he can get the LibDems and the DUP, for example, to agree to govern with him.

I understand the coalition thing, but how does he govern with a minority?

Can you run a parliamentary system with a minority party?

That probably is a stupid question to someone who is European, but America works differently.

So I'm curious.
 
Here's the BBC's electoral map. Kind of fascinating, especially to me that all of Scotland is SNP except for a tiny red dot (Edinburgh South) that is Labour.

Your guys elections are way more interesting than ours. We pick apples and oranges, and you all offer mangoes, bananas, pine nuts, free-range options, and a whole lot of otherness.

We offer apples and oranges.
 
Tzara said:
Looks like another five years of Tory leadership. Maybe. You guys OK with that?

So, UKers, please explain to me how a hung parliament works. I've read things that suggest that Cameron could govern without a coalition with some of the minor parties, but that he'd be better off aligning with them, if he can get the LibDems and the DUP, for example, to agree to govern with him.

I understand the coalition thing, but how does he govern with a minority?

Can you run a parliamentary system with a minority party?

That probably is a stupid question to someone who is European, but America works differently.

So I'm curious.
Click to expand...

here you go, T - and quite honestly it baffles most of us here in the UK
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/

in effect, the other party involved can put a bit of a brake on the main party's drive by not voting things through, but it also meant (in the last one, Cons/Lib-Dems) that the Lib-Dems didn't have the power to honour the promises they'd made to the electorate ... this is why they did so very badly this time around: they got into bed with the conservatives instead of labour, and the very promises that had gained them popularity disappeared like water down a drain.

as things stand, the conservatives now have a majority parliament and i for one find that a very worrying thing. i am moving to america, but i have sons still living here and they'll have to get through another 5 years of conservative strangleholds.
 
butters said:
here you go, T - and quite honestly it baffles most of us here in the UK
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/

in effect, the other party involved can put a bit of a brake on the main party's drive by not voting things through, but it also meant (in the last one, Cons/Lib-Dems) that the Lib-Dems didn't have the power to honour the promises they'd made to the electorate ... this is why they did so very badly this time around: they got into bed with the conservatives instead of labour, and the very promises that had gained them popularity disappeared like water down a drain.

as things stand, the conservatives now have a majority parliament and i for one find that a very worrying thing. i am moving to america, but i have sons still living here and they'll have to get through another 5 years of conservative strangleholds.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ms. b. I found an article at the Telegraph that offers a pretty good explanation of the different options. I've been spending the day reading about how governments are formed, etc. Very interesting and, of course, very different from us in the US of A.

My original question is moot, though, as the Conservatives won an outright majority, as you said.
 
I reckon the Conservatives won because so many people in Scotland changed their votes to the Scottish National Party (SNP), whereas before they had been voting Labour. The SNP didn't have a hope in hell of winning the whole election but they could get their MPs into Parliament but ultimately they took away too many Labour seats.
 
UnderYourSpell said:
I reckon the Conservatives won because so many people in Scotland changed their votes to the Scottish National Party (SNP), whereas before they had been voting Labour. The SNP didn't have a hope in hell of winning the whole election but they could get their MPs into Parliament but ultimately they took away too many Labour seats.
Click to expand...

That's what we thought too although none of the BBC talking-heads actually said that - at least while we watched, but it seemed a no-brainer.
 
Even if every single Scot's voter had voted Labour, they still wouldn't have had enough seats to challenge for the right to form a government, or 'hang' Parliament; the second the Tories passed the 326 mark, they had the majority; even if all the other seats in the house banded together, they couldn't have matched them; the 'First Past The Post' system defeated them. I think you've put your finger on a telling point, though; voters in England voted Tory as it probably seemed the least worst option; if they'd voted Labour and given them enough seats to be on par with the Tories, the spectre of a coalition with the rabidly anti-English SNP separatists would have overshadowed any potential Labour government, no matter what Milliband pledged before the election; Labour don't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to keeping pre-Election pledges and promises...
 
This question is a little off point, but why does the primary British press (the BBC, for example) seem to ignore the results from Northern Ireland?

Most of the news feeds I've read talk about the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, UKIP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens, but ignore the parties in Northern Ireland, even though some of them have more seats in parliament than the lesser mainland parties.

I'm assuming it's because the NI parties are not relevant to the overall constitution of parliament, but they are larger constituencies than some of the minor parties being reported in the British press. So this is confusing to me.
 
butters said:
as things stand, the conservatives now have a majority parliament and i for one find that a very worrying thing. i am moving to america, but i have sons still living here and they'll have to get through another 5 years of conservative strangleholds.
Click to expand...

I sympathise with you, Butters, and I very much regret the Tories in government for another 5 years.
(Can you trust them 5 minutes?)
I suppose, Labor (new Labor, that is) can only blame itself for its policies over the last few decades.
I as a foreign person thought that it certainly did not help its electoral campaign having war criminals like Blair appearing on tele from time to time talking the same crap over and over again. I wonder what British voters think of him now a days. Probably worse than Americans think of Bush 2.

Oh well, I think that all post-industrial societies deserve the political leaders they get in the end of the day.
 
Tzara said:
This question is a little off point, but why does the primary British press (the BBC, for example) seem to ignore the results from Northern Ireland?

Most of the news feeds I've read talk about the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, UKIP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens, but ignore the parties in Northern Ireland, even though some of them have more seats in parliament than the lesser mainland parties.

I'm assuming it's because the NI parties are not relevant to the overall constitution of parliament, but they are larger constituencies than some of the minor parties being reported in the British press. So this is confusing to me.
Click to expand...


Traditionally, one at least of the Northern Ireland parties - Sinn Fein do not take up their seats in Westminster. The various 'Unionist' parties support the Conservatives (that used to be called the Conservative and Unionist Party).

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ycott-westminster-michelle-gildernew-election

Sinn Fein wants a united Ireland and sees the Westminster Parliament as representing the oppressors. That doesn't stop them claiming Parliamentary expenses. :D To be serious, those who vote for Sinn Fein are well aware that the MPs will not go to Westminster.
 
Tzara said:
...

I understand the coalition thing, but how does he govern with a minority?

Can you run a parliamentary system with a minority party?

That probably is a stupid question to someone who is European, but America works differently.

So I'm curious.
Click to expand...

It's not a stupid question. The Telegraph article laid out the position in the UK fairly well, BUT:

Other European democracies have run with minority governments for years, with or without formal or informal coalitions. As long as there is no serious challenge from the various other parties, and many European countries have far more political parties than in the UK, a minority government can continue.

The only threat is if all the other parties unite against the government. In most countries that is almost impossible because many of the minority parties hate each other far more than the ruling party.

The United States has a two-party system. The UK has two major parties. It is difficult for a third party to generate enough votes in specific seats to get a serious number of Members of Parliament. If you look at the totals of votes for each party across the UK - UKIP won far more votes than the Scottish Nationalist Party but UKIP has one MP, and the SNP has 56.


animation_3296491b.jpg
 
oggbashan said:
Traditionally, one at least of the Northern Ireland parties - Sinn Fein do not take up their seats in Westminster. The various 'Unionist' parties support the Conservatives (that used to be called the Conservative and Unionist Party).

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ycott-westminster-michelle-gildernew-election

Sinn Fein wants a united Ireland and sees the Westminster Parliament as representing the oppressors. That doesn't stop them claiming Parliamentary expenses. :D To be serious, those who vote for Sinn Fein are well aware that the MPs will not go to Westminster.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ogg, but that doesn't answer my question, which was why does the British Isle press not list outcomes in Northern Ireland ridings as part of their normal coverage? They routinely list a number of parties: Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, UKIP, etc., but the Northern Ireland parties seem to always be lumped under "Other," even when they have won more seats that some of the parties (UKIP, the Greens) that are reported.

That's what's confusing to me. It's as if we in the USA did not report who won the senatorial races in Hawaii or Alaska.

Is it because the "real" election is the Conservatives vs. Labour and pretty much everything else is irrelevant?

It just seems odd to me, as if CNN lumped all Texas results under "Other."
 
oggbashan said:
It's not a stupid question. The Telegraph article laid out the position in the UK fairly well, BUT:

Other European democracies have run with minority governments for years, with or without formal or informal coalitions. As long as there is no serious challenge from the various other parties, and many European countries have far more political parties than in the UK, a minority government can continue.
Click to expand...
Many other European democracies operate under proportional representation, which makes minority party representation much more viable. It isn't immediately obvious to me why having one seat in parliament is useful to a party, but I suppose one is better than none.
oggbashan said:
The only threat is if all the other parties unite against the government. In most countries that is almost impossible because many of the minority parties hate each other far more than the ruling party.

The United States has a two-party system.
Click to expand...
Actually, we do not. Functionally we have a two-party system, but there are a shitload of parties who rarely get elected to anything. The US Senate has two "independent" senators: Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who self-identifies as Socialist). We have occasionally elected third party candidates to office--Jesse Ventura, Reform Party, as governor of Minnesota, for example. My home town, Seattle, has a Socialist City Council member.

These are, of course, unusual circumstances.
oggbashan said:
The UK has two major parties. It is difficult for a third party to generate enough votes in specific seats to get a serious number of Members of Parliament. If you look at the totals of votes for each party across the UK - UKIP won far more votes than the Scottish Nationalist Party but UKIP has one MP, and the SNP has 56.
Click to expand...
This is also pretty much the case in the States. You run as a Democrat or Republican because the odds of your being elected with any other party label are vanishingly small.
 
Last edited:
Tzara said:
Thanks, Ogg, but that doesn't answer my question, which was why does the British Isle press not list outcomes in Northern Ireland ridings as part of their normal coverage? They routinely list a number of parties: Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, UKIP, etc., but the Northern Ireland parties seem to always be lumped under "Other," even when they have won more seats that some of the parties (UKIP, the Greens) that are reported.

That's what's confusing to me. It's as if we in the USA did not report who won the senatorial races in Hawaii or Alaska.

Is it because the "real" election is the Conservatives vs. Labour and pretty much everything else is irrelevant?

It just seems odd to me, as if CNN lumped all Texas results under "Other."
Click to expand...

Northern Ireland politics are *different*. Whatever happens there is very unlikely to influence the rest of the UK, partly because some of those elected will not go to Westminster, and partly because the major parties prefer not to be associated with Northern Ireland MPs unless they are desperate. Too many mainland UK politicians have destroyed their careers trying to bring peace and prosperity to Northern Ireland.

Very few people outside Northern Ireland, except perhaps for historical reasons in parts of Scotland (Celtic and Rangers football club supporters for example) and Boston US understand how Northern Ireland politics works. But they do know that violence is possible.

If Alaska only had candidates that were Inuit speakers that had a temporary truce between infighting with AK47s, and wouldn't speak American, I think your media would ignore them too.

I'm being unfair to NI politicians. Over the last decade or so they have worked hard to make the peace process work, and to their credit to a large extent they have succeeded. But that doesn't make their concerns really affect mainstream politics in the UK as a whole. That wasn't always the case. The old Liberal Party, that used to alternate with the Conservatives as the majority party, destroyed itself over Irish Home Rule.
 
Last edited:
From my vantage point many thousands of miles away, I don't know whether he poses a credible threat to the regime of the odious Cameron, but I am loving what Jeremy Corbyn stands for. I wish we had someone like him in the White House.
 
Wouldn't you expect him to sing your National Anthem because he certainly refused to sing ours!
 
UnderYourSpell said:
Wouldn't you expect him to sing your National Anthem because he certainly refused to sing ours!
Click to expand...

Wow, UYS, I didn't know that! I had to google it. I hope you won't take offense when I say that I like him even better now. I find the idea of a hereditary monarchy repellent, and I am particularly at odds with Liz and her husband, who is all about culling the darker races. I wouldn't ask Mr. Corbyn to sing another nation's anthem, but I applaud him for not singing that one.
 
UnderYourSpell said:
Wouldn't you expect him to sing your National Anthem because he certainly refused to sing ours!
Click to expand...

According to his aides "He stood in respectful silence".

Singing God Save The Queen when you think the Monarchy should be abolished would be a contradiction.

If you read the full words, and all verses, of the National Anthem you can see his objection. Verse 6 is usually suppressed. The full version is rarely used:

1. God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen
God save the Queen
Send her victorious
Happy and glorious
Long to reign over us
God save the Queen

2. O Lord our God arise
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall
Confound their politics
Frustrate their knavish tricks
On Thee our hopes we fix
God save us all

3. Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour
Long may she reign
May she defend our laws
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen

4. Not in this land alone
But be God's mercies known
From shore to shore
Lord make the nations see
That men should brothers be
And form one family
The wide world over

5. From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!
 
On the one hand, JC was being true to his republican views, but on the other (more realistic?) hand it was a politically naive stand to take which will stay with him and will undoubtedly be used to his detriment in the future.

However, I'm very impressed with his unflustered approach to being hounded by the press and for all his obvious obstacles to becoming a future PM, he's starting to grow on me. I bet he won't be buddying up to Murdoch and his sleazy media-staff, unlike Cameron et al. Click
 
Messier82 said:
On the one hand, JC was being true to his republican views, but on the other (more realistic?) hand it was a politically naive stand to take which will stay with him and will undoubtedly be used to his detriment in the future.

However, I'm very impressed with his unflustered approach to being hounded by the press and for all his obvious obstacles to becoming a future PM, he's starting to grow on me. I bet he won't be buddying up to Murdoch and his sleazy media-staff, unlike Cameron et al.]
Click to expand...

He knows that most of the media won't be his friend. Apart from the Murdoch media, many other media sources regard his views with horror.
 
oggbashan said:
He knows that most of the media won't be his friend. Apart from the Murdoch media, many other media sources regard his views with horror.
Click to expand...

They did their level best to crush him prior to the party election, and failed. Are there any media at all in the UK with a republican orientation? Maybe some will emerge. Perhaps there is the possibility of real change in the UK now. I wish I could see a parallel development in the US.

01queen4802.jpg
 
AlwaysHungry said:
They did their level best to crush him prior to the party election, and failed. Are there any media at all in the UK with a republican orientation? Maybe some will emerge. Perhaps there is the possibility of real change in the UK now. I wish I could see a parallel development in the US.
Click to expand...

Republican? Anti-monarchy?

Not really except for low-circulation left wing papers. The UK media know that the public wouldn't buy anti-monarchy views in any quantity.
 
Of course, the UK includes Ireland. Surely there a few republican-oriented media there? And all of this makes Mr. Corbyn's electoral success all the more improbable and exciting.
 
AlwaysHungry said:
Of course, the UK includes Ireland. Surely there a few republican-oriented media there? And all of this makes Mr. Corbyn's electoral success all the more improbable and exciting.
Click to expand...

There are republican media organisations in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

But in Northern Ireland the media is polarised between Republican = Unite Ireland and Unionist = Wave the Union Jack and love the Monarchy.

Neither of the republican media groups in Northern Ireland nor Scotland make much impression on the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr Corbyn's electoral success WAS improbable but overwhelming. The impact of his success will change the Labour Party significantly.

But what is possibly more significant for UK politics as a whole is that he brought many people into politics that would never have participated before. That follows from the revived interest in politics brought about by UKIP, the SNP, and the Scottish Devolution referendum.

UKIP, the SNP and the new members for Labour have produced enthusiasm and involvement that haven't been seen for decades. Whether those who have become interested in politics will retain that commitment in future? It is a long time until the next UK General Election.
 
oggbashan said:
Mr Corbyn's electoral success WAS improbable but overwhelming. The impact of his success will change the Labour Party significantly.

But what is possibly more significant for UK politics as a whole is that he brought many people into politics that would never have participated before. That follows from the revived interest in politics brought about by UKIP, the SNP, and the Scottish Devolution referendum.

UKIP, the SNP and the new members for Labour have produced enthusiasm and involvement that haven't been seen for decades. Whether those who have become interested in politics will retain that commitment in future? It is a long time until the next UK General Election.
Click to expand...

I have met some SNP activists who were visiting the states.

I am very heartened by Mr. Corbyn's success, and I hope against hope that something like that can happen here across the pond, where the Democratic Party leadership follows Tony Blair and the Republican Party leadership follows Homer Simpson. We have a few rebels, but Bernie is an annoying johnny-one-note populist, and Martin O'Malley is nearly invisible, probably because the media here have made a collective decision to suppress his campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
In the world of sexual fetishes, crossing the political aisle is a kink
2
Replies
44
Views
999
PaxNurgle
P
lauraskitty
2 Transgender Women Win Parliament Seats in Germany National Election
Replies
1
Views
713
stickygirl
stickygirl
A
Life in a failed state (not one you've likely ever heard of)
Replies
0
Views
364
Aerolineas
A
Tzara
OK, now I'm following the Canadian election even if no one else in the USA is
Replies
7
Views
1K
Tzara
Tzara
B
A party putting itself first before the country it is trying to govern
Replies
10
Views
653
bodysong
B
Back
Top