UK general election

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I can’t believe nobody has made a thread about this yet - is everyone American or continental European? Am I the only Brit left?

Anyhow - following the results of the UK general election 2 days ago, the last vestiges of my faith in democracy in UK practice have been pretty shot.

Conservatives realistically only have a small minority of actual supporters. Labour has had such bad press since Tony stepped down, Conservatives have capitalised on the PR opportunity to blame everything on Gordon. Everything up until him had been as a result of NEW LABOUR, a more conservative or least centrist version of labour - Gordon is much more a supporter of ‘old labour’ and has practically nothing to do with how Tony’s Labour government turned out. All his budget stuff, his previous role, was heavily swayed by his superior at the time before he stepped down.

The government of the time is obviously vulnerable to complete accountability because they were the ones in power. Conservatives will obviously use this to their advantage.

The result:

  • More ignorant voters are swayed by the media and turn to conservatives for change.
  • LIBERAL DEMOCRATS are ignored as the only other option because no one trusts the rest of the country to go with them because they have not yet proven their worth having not been given a chance.
  • AND ACCORDING TO OPINION POLLS, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE A HUGE PROPORTION OF SUPPORT! This was completely unrepresented in the final result for because of tactical voters and the way counting is done.
  • More ignorant voters are scared by conservatives getting in and want to vote labour as the “only realistic option” for displacing a conservative majority.
  • Voter turnout is still relatively low because the poorer are ignorant/uninterested/untrusting. The party that would directly benefit them most would be Lib Dem.

What should have been the result if everyone was more informed and not scared into being ‘tactical’:

  • The majority went with their actual beliefs and voted Liberal democrats.
  • A slightly lesser number go with Labour.
  • A minority go with Conservatives.

Liberal Democrat policies benefit the majority: FACT. The majority of the country are not rich, they get taxed less - the wealth gap is decreased. Pensioners don’t need to live on the edge of their means. Higher employment for better off workers = more added value and health. The only people who ‘lose out’ are the richer - yet relatively to everyone else, they are still the richer!

The country is benefitted as a whole because:
Everyone’s money is always in banks - giving national investment just the same access as always to funds.
Richer international investers will NOT be put off because their investment pay-off is based on nationwide GROWTH relative to other countries - not ‘the amount of money’ to their name. With higher growth, a smaller number of money denotes a higher VALUE internationally. There are still just as much luxuries available in the country, but the amount of money they COST is denoted by a smaller number. IN FACT THEY DON’T LOSE OUT AT ALL! They still have access to all the luxury they ever had, and national growth increases because the workers are healthier and less strained.

Social issues happen more because of poorness, which is lessened by the decreased wealth gap and boredom because nothing worthwhile is affordable. Public funds and private funds benefitting from improved national growth can put more money into opportunities for them that they can now actually afford. Public interest is diverted towards more constructive things.

As things are:
52% of the number of votes are shared between Liberal Democrats and Labour, but because of the way things are done, they cannot form a coalition on their own.
Just before the election, each of the main 3 parties held approximately a 1/3 of the nation’s approval each (35% Con/28% LD/28%Lab), according to opinion polls - the general election results saw Lib Dems holding under 1/10 of the nation’s seats.
Those who support left wing politics would vote Lib Dem if not Labour, and vice versa - leaving a single right wing party to steal a relative majority despite the actual majority favouring left wing politics.

This is not even taking into account voter ignorance, media sway, labour having been accountable for the last 8 years and tactical voting.

At least if this complete democratic failure was for the nation’s best, I might be consoled!

2

Every election is by definition the success of democracy. As long as someone is elected, democracy cannot “fail”.

Thus you see the error inherent within democracy?

3

The essence of democracy is not that people vote, and someone gets elected - these are merely symptoms.

The word literally derives as “rule by the people” - this means that the voting and subsequent election are in accordance with what the public actually want.

The UK General Election resulted in left wing supporters being spread over 2 parties, right wing over 1. One of the left wing parties got 10% of the seats despite getting 25% of the vote. Along with many other flaws that I went into more depth about in my OP, in what way is this representative of what the people want?

Yes, someone was elected, yes it was called democracy, yes people voted - but if the results represent something closer to the REVERSE of what the people want, in what was is the result representative of what the people want? Therefore: in what way was this actually successful democracy in practice?

From what I gather, TLM, you’re not English so this may not be quite so relevant to you. I can’t think of a single Brit on here actually. Electoral systems differ all over the world - our one is clearly shit. I’m not sure I know of a better one though, to be honest. I get that it’s more practical to do it the way they do and the results bear SOME semblence to what the public want - regardless of ignorance, manipulation, fear, low turn out etc…

I just can’t help consider that this is all intentional to regulate the system as it is for some reason or other. I’ve been trying to figure out why it might be being done “for our own good” but I keep coming up with counter arguments for every argument I come up with to support the idea that people who know what they’re doing are doing it for the best.

4

No small part of the problem is that those with the vote are the least likely to know what they want past a good beer, a shag, and a comfortable mattress - paid for by someone else. That isn’t unique to Britain. It is common to all “democracies”.

Beyond that, politicians pander to whatever they think the voters want to hear - even if they would rather do what they think is “right” for the people. Their only job is to get elected and stay elected. Anything they do that actually represents the voters who put them in office is more accidental than on purpose. This isn’t necessarily bad, because the general public is almost as clueless as their representatives.

At least in Britain, campaigns aren’t decided by who has the most money. Your politicians might actually have some substance (doubtful, but possible) where here in the States, to be a politician means pimping yourself out to whoever will give you money.

You are lucky. Your politicians are forced to compromise in order to form a government. In the U.S., compromise is spelled c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n.

There are several Brits in the membership, but they might be as cynical about what is called government as I am, and don’t want to comment…

5

If only, tent, if only… Google “Lord Aschroft” and come back to me on that one.
I’ve been involved with the Green Party at grassroots level and it’s hard to get a small party electorally viable because you need a lot of lucre to do it. Certainly our politics is not as money-driven as that in the US, but that’s a bit like saying that the White House isn’t as opulent as Versailles.

This is about the best article I’ve read yet on the outcome of the election.

6

That is what democracy is. Anything else such as “intelligent electorate” or “politically interested people” is effecting separation between so-called “good” and “bad” democracy. But it still democracy even if people are mindlessly going to the polls and voting for whomever shoves the most advertizements into their brains.

Its the flaw of democracy - it establishes no incentives or methods for maintaining an intelligent and interested electorate. And it cannot, because we all know that the average human is incompetent and lazy. Democracy is the rule of the average, mob rule. What do you think is going to happen when you hand the reigns of society to the mob?

And what the public actually want is defined in democracy as who gets elected by the greatest majority. There is no other standard of measure.

Im not defending it, yes that is a shitty situation - its why the europran model is flawed over and above basic democracy, because of the representative districting. You fraction up the legislative seats in these ways, in terms of party affiliations and percentages of representatives as determined by the size and number of these parties, and you get these skewed results. Here in the US we have single member districting, so only one representative is elected from each small district. Thus if a liberal wins by 51% and his opponent loses with 49%, that individual district (say representing some 30,000 people near a major city) is represented as 100% liberal in congress.

Its not really “fair” because almost half the people in that district wanted to be represented the other way, and now 49% of the people are not represented. But what other choice is there, how else can we do it? The europrean model is just as fucked up, because you try to split that 100% into the respective parties and how much voting block they won, and in the end, because of the complexity and size of these systems, you get, as you said, “got 10% of the seats despite getting 25% of the vote”. I guess I dont know UK politics as well, I am basing my understanding more off the german model. But if yours is more like the US with single member districting, or if it is more like the german model of “fractional” districting, in the end its still fucked. That is democracy, though - its shit. It doesnt work.

I agree, but what alternative is there?

The fact is that democracy needs to be administered somehow, a representative system put into place. Because our systems are so highly and overly complex, they are bound to error. And what other choice is there? Because unless youre going to make every individual voter a representative, you immediately have statistical overlap for error, its unavoidable: you have two people, X and Y, each votes for opposing parties. Which gets represented? The one who voted with the greater majority of other voters. The loser here gets no representation. Is that fair? No, but its the way democracy has to work. Only the majority gets to be represented. That is the essence of democracy.

The minority does not get represented. Not in democracy, anyways. Thus the essence, and flaw, of mob rule.

Yes, these systems are designed because they perpetuate the status quo. And they are easily manipulable. But like you said, what choice is better? If you want so-called representative government, you can only represent the majority, by definition. Someone has to get elected, something has to be done, some bills and policies need to be enacted at the expense of others. In the end youve got winners and losers. In democracy, the winner is the mob, and the loser is anyone who thinks for himself and is not of the mob. No matter how you spin it, thats what happens. UK or US or anywhere else. Mob rule is a shit way to govern a society. You can try to manipulate the systems to make them more representative, more fractional, more balanced and “fair”, or you can try to make them efficient and conform as best as possible to the majority opinion, but ultimately people are gullible and easily duped, and can be controlled by the system itself to mindlessly vote for the same shit over and over.

In essence, the average person is not qualified nor interested in governing a society. And yet our systems pretend that they are. The flaw isnt necessarily in the way in which our democracies are formed, although of course these are highly flawed, but the main error is that the people are incapable of governing themselves. So even if we found some perfect representative system where everyone was somehow represented and had valued input, it would still sink into shit. And probably a lot faster.

7

Silhouette,

Imagine how I’m currently feeling as a Scot. Do you realise that there are 9 Conservative MP’s between Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales? Currently I live in a constituency with a Labour Council, a SNP Scottish Government, and a Conservative UK Government, and I voted Lib Dem! ](*,) I’ve been an advocate of Scottish Independence for a while, and this outlines why.

As for the election itself, I agree with most of what you say. It’s absolutely scandalous that due to our FPTP system, the Lib Dems can gain 23% of the popular vote, yet are represented in parliament with less than 9% of the seats. Conversely, Labour gained 29% of the popular vote, but have 39% of the seats in parliament and the Conservatives got just over 36% of the popular vote and have 47% of the seats in parliament.

As you said turnout was at 65%, not great for a country such as ourselves. But this may note be completely down to voter apathy, although it does play a problem. Go back to my situation. I live in East Renfrewshire in the heart of Labour loving Central Scotland, a seat held by Labour MP Jim Murphy for the last 12 years with the usual majority anywhere between 6000-10000. As safe a Labour seat as you could imagine. Now over the years I have voted SNP, Green and most recently Lib Dems. Never Labour. Each time I have known my vote has been cast in vain, for there is absolutely no chance that anyone other than Labour will win in this constituancy, barring a political scandal of gargantuan proportions. Where’s the incentive for me to vote? This is a situation echoed throughout Britain, and due to our FPTP system, my vote, and others like it, are essentially pissing in the wind. Never mind ‘no vote, no voice’, I’m the political equivilant of a mute!

In regards to tactical voting, I could smell Labour’s desperation when (The Dark) Lord Mandelson said he wouldn’t be adverse to people electing Lib Dem MP’s in areas Labour couldn’t win. This whole idea of Labour - Good, Tory - Bad, really pisses me off. And I actually complained to my local MP about his campaign literature which stated the election was a two horse race. Labour have sold themselves as the only alternative to the Tories for so long that they actually expect us to believe it, and the sad thing is, at least here in Scotland, most people do.

The amount of people I’ve spoken to who wanted to vote Lib Dem, but didn’t because they were scared the Tories would get in is ridiculous. If people had the conviction to vote how they wanted, rather than blindly following like sheep, then we may see a much different government than what we have.

That said I’m hopeful, perhaps niavely, that this current co-alition could be the beginning of a new era of British politics. What I hope to see happen in the coming years is:

  • A referendum on Scottish Independence (Given that Westminister is governed by the Tories, Independence may seem more of an attractive option to Scots)
  • A referendum on reforming the FPTP voting system
  • The breaking down of party politics, more by necessity than choice but beggars can’t be choosers. (Given that the Tories and the Lib Dems have to work together in government I am hopeful we shall see the beginning of this)
  • A clean out of the House of Commons
  • A referendum on the House of Lords

If even two of these are accomplised, I will put this election down as a success.

8

Had a small minority. Recent developments in the US, Greece and generally in the socialist world are finally beginning to sink in. They’re beginning to recognize the Leftist, Labor Ponzi Scheme for what it is–Finally. I just hope it not to late.

9

Leftist Ponzi scheme? You mean the one like Madoff, Goldman Sachs, J.P Morgan? You know, those “leftists” who created the economic meltdown? I’ve seen irony before, but this one is pretty close to the top. :laughing:

10

Lol, all Capitalism is a Ponzi Scheme - left or right. You may laugh but it’s pretty easily explainable.

Inside a system, like a nation, growth/profit is obviously only possible with a shift of wealth from outside to inside. Inside, wealth can be passed around the place and accumulate more in one area than another, but this does not involve growth of the entire system - just different permutations of the same size system. There can only be growth in one area of this system relative to other areas. Since the system relies on mutual interdependence i.e. trade, there can only be growth in one area over another as long as the other areas have something to lose for the growing area to gain. Since there is only a certain amount that the other areas can lose, growth meets its eventual limits. Capitalism relies on growth in order to be Capitalism, and once the limit is reached and the growth stops, the Capitalist removes his accumulated wealth and takes it to another system - gutting the old one. A system like this cannot be sustained - this is the nature of the Ponzi Scheme. Growth is not sustainable, which is not a problem unless Capitalists require its sustainability.

There are two ways in which to actually add to the size of the system: attracting/seizing investment from outside the system, and getting something ‘from nothing’ inside the system. A physically rich nation can extract resources from its own land, and add value to them by manufacturing them into something of more worth - e.g. a tool to help the process of extracting resources. But once the resources are taken from the land ‘for free’, all this tool making and exchange of wealth in general is just a process of passing wealth around, like I described in the last paragraph. The growth is entirely dependent on the addition of resources to the system to ‘do things with’, or outside investment to add resources to the system to ‘do things with’ - this can be attracted or seized by force through war. Once the supply of “injection” starts to dry up e.g. the resources are running out or have run out, seizing resources from elsewhere has become unviable and investors move their money elsewhere, there can only be passing around of wealth like I described in the last paragraph. This eventual Ponzi situation can now only create the illusion of growth:

“Right” Capitalism can “create” the illusion of need for a product through marketing, they can drive down the costs of labour, look for cheaper labour in another system, they can make labourers work longer, refine work methods and technology that costs less than labourers etc.
“Left” Capitalism can “create” the illusion of more money by selectively printing it and removing it from the economy, they can control the labour supply by controlling immigration, they can control the costs of things that the labour force needs to sustain themselves, they can control the job supply by simply making something to do that may or may not pay off etc.

Both approaches are limited to being balanced to fit the accumulation of internal resources and external investment/forceful seizure. When this balance fails - whichever approaches you take to create the illusion that it hasn’t - the Ponzi Scheme of Capitalism collapses sooner or later because it required this sustained growth that is not infinitely sustainable.

11

Ok, let’s not argue about definitions. I understand your more inclusive one and I’m sure you understand mine staying true to the derivation only.

I don’t think I’ve supported democracy itself yet, just complained about how it’s “bad” democracy instead of “good” democracy - or in my terms, not actually ruled by the people as the word derivation suggests since the people are being manipulated etc.
I’m aware that democracy only caters for the mob and majority. I am suggesting that this could be less of a bad thing than it is if the mob were educated and given a better system to elect through. The mob aren’t inherently averse to learning, it’s the conditions they are given that make them uninterested in democracy.

My complaint is that it is not representative enough. I wouldn’t say democracy doesn’t work, but within the confines of what it’s supposed to be, it could be a lot better. In my opinion, the US way is worse - it may make decisions quicker and more precise, but this focuses the electorate too much on who they want to WIN/not win the seat/election, rather than voting for who they want. I’d gladly sacrifice this competitive aspect of elections for more dissenting voices actually being representative of the population they are supposed to represent - in the name of democracy actually being democracy, whether or not democracy is best. They would still act only on what the majority voted for, but at least have this be representative of the population and open to debate!

The “winner” should be the minority who maximise the use of the majority. Like a ‘trickle-up’ theory, improving things for the mob can be used by the minority who use the better equipped mob for their own better equipment. And the mob could easily be better equipped to govern themselves for the indirect purposes of the minority who know what they’re doing. As it is, the ‘brain’ of the system is strangling the other ‘parts of the body’ before they had a time to work towards making the ‘brain’ able to work better: to use the crude age old analogy of the human body system to represent a healthy national body system.

Lol, I had no idea. That’s just ridiculous.
“The amount of people I’ve spoken to who wanted to vote Lib Dem, but didn’t because they were scared the Tories would get in” - it’s exactly the same story all over the UK.

12

As long as I’m not taxed the fuck out of, I don’t care who is in power - I guess as long as my quality of life is maintained or bettered, but not lowered, coz then that’s just going backwards.

My borough has always been a Labour borough since I was born and probably before even then, but for the last 5 years it has been Lib Dem, and now it’s back to Labour #-o Why are they fixing it if it ain’t broke i.e. why the fuck did they vote Labour back in here. [-(

13

I don’t know why Magsj, but I always had you down as a Tory.

Hope the suggestion doesn’t offend you too much!

14

That is a pretty Tory point of view, I have to say.

15

I personally feel the most disappointing aspect of this election has been the way Clegg and the Lib Dems, who despite at one point genuinely looking like they were all about changing our politics for the better, discarded many of their main policies in order to jump into bed with the Conservatives.

Electoral Reform
Scrapping the renewal of Trident
Not ring fencing NHS funds
Earned citizenship & regional caps for immigrants
First £10,000 tax free for lowest earners

Above are some of the policies that Clegg campaigned on throughout the election, policies which clearly resonated with people given the rise in the opinion polls for the Lib Dems. Of the above policies all bar one have been scrapped in the coalition. The one that hasn’t been scrapped is the electoral reform policy, which if memory serves, was mainly about having a fully elected House of Lords and a referendum on PR for the next general election. What the Lib Dems got was the Conservatives promising a committee to ‘look into’ an elected House of Lords (a policy many of their members don’t want enacted), and a referendum not for PR but for AV for the next election ( a policy that the Conservatives will campaign against).

It could, of course,be argued that the nation needed stable government sooner rather than later in this economic climate and so forth, but what kind of message does this send out the voters about democracy, especially the new generation of 1st time voters, many of whom believed that the Lib Dems promised change and now feel betrayed and could possibly be turned off from voting again?

16

Million21:

First £10,000 tax free for lowest earners

This is still being introduced, albeit phased until 2011. The thing we have to realise is that this coalition was always going to be about comprimise. There was no way the Tories would have allowed Trident to be scrapped, therefore that is straight out. Also both the Tories and Lib Dems were at odds over immigration, and given that the Tories had the majority of the vote, any deal would be favoured towards them.

The reformendum on electoral reform, is one which I can see the public voting for, rather than against. Yes it is only AV rather than PR, but it is a step in the right direction. I’m extremely surprise about the Tories granting this, because it is a big concession on their part.

It’s worth bearing in mind that some electoral pledges will be kept, scrapping of ID cards and reform on non-dom donations for example. Also bear in mind that the Lib-Dems, have and hopefully will continue to blunt the full impact of a Tory government. For those of us who didn’t vote Tory, this can only be a good thing.

The Lib-Dems were stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. They had a large bartering chip in being the only party able to partner a coalition, but I for one would not have been surprised to see the Tories go it alone.

17

Like all good art students I was a good little Labour supporter, but I have come to loathe their uncaring nature, and have become more… Conservative in my views, so no offence taken :smiley:

Well, I guess I make a good Tory supporter then :laughing: even though I voted Lib Dem #-o

18

As for the coalition compromises, Electoral Reform is the single most important issue to hold onto out of those 5 mentioned.

The electoral form at the minute has consistently kept Lib Dems down. Despite their obvious popularity, the current system forces the electorate to be far too concerned with who will win, and to only concentrate on the established popularity of the main 2 parties - using one solely for the purposes of keeping the other out. I’m surprised/glad the Lib Dems got as far as they did, and getting into even a coalition situation is entirely forgivable - as long as they get into a position of significant recognisable effective power, they can gain the public trust to actually be effective in practice.

A significant reason why Lib Dem don’t get as many votes as the main 2 parties is that the public don’t yet properly trust them to be effective in practice, and so won’t even give them a chance. If they can use this opportunity to at least change the electoral form, they can kill two birds with one stone by not only partly proving their worth in practice but also securing an electoral system that will give them a better chance in the next election.

I’m going to remain optimistic for now, rather than get demoralised by the knowledge that mostly only Tory policies will get voted for. Neither party are in favour of taxing me more because I’m a low wage earner, and that’s all I really care about it when it comes down to it. Other Lib Dem policies are just a bonus that I’m still fully behind, even though they’re only ‘extras’ to me, personally. Whilst I believe Lib Dems are best for the country, this thread was made more about the fact that democracy is continuing to fail to be as representative as it could and should be - if it wants to go under the name of democracy.