Three weeks until the election

[helene_t]

There is no concencus other than that it was known in advance that the election would be difficult to predict because of the possibility that many who claimed to intend to vote for a third party might end up voting tactically for one of the two main parties in their constituency. This is always the case in the uk but this time more so.

 

I have also seen it suggested that the conservatives were ahead for a long time but that poll pannels tend to be shy of admitting to support conservatives. I personally find this hard to believe but maybe, given the toxicity of the right wing press, some people are afraid of admitting to vote in line with dirty newspapers.

Participation rates are generally higher for right wing than for left and pollers try to adjust for this but maybe this time it was more pronounced due to disillusioned libdems and the labour leader's lack of charisma.

 

Something else: The press writes a lot about the collapase of the labour party these days. I don't see why. Labour increased their share of the votes a little bit compared to the (admittedly very bad) 2010 results, which is an OK result given the surge of SNP, Greens and UKIP, all of which compete with Labour (yeah I know labour supporters may be reluctant to admit that they compete with UKIP but it is true). Labour had a more left-winged leader this time, while the conservatives have a relatively moderate leader. These factors should move some centrist voters towards the conservatives. And a number of newspapers fought a very dirty war against Labour, allowing the conservatives to be the nice guys as they didn't need to throw mud themselves.

 

So given the circumstances I think Labour did OK. The polls had predicted they would do better but maybe the polls have been biased for a long time.

 

LibDems, on the other hand, were badly hit and it may take them decades to recover.

[blackshoe]

But as I said, this discussion shouldn't be about for whom it is the bigger burden to receive refugees. It should be about taking responsibility and giving other people the same right to seek security and happiness as we have.

You don't give people rights. They have rights. You may or may not acknowledge those rights, but they still have them. As for "taking responsibility" what does that mean? What is it for which Europeans are supposedly responsible, and why?

[Cyberyeti]

I would like to get back for a moment to the election and the polls. What happened? I understand that Labour might have done better with a different leader, but the leader was known when the polls were taken. Voters elect an MP rather than cast a vote directly for the PM, but the pollsters knew this also (of course). The election was predicted to be very close. I see that the Conservatives have 330 seats out of 650, Labour has 232. No one calls that close.

 

No politician in the US can sneeze without having fifty analysts discussing the meaning of this momentous event. Maybe the UK has not reached that point yet, but surely there has been some analysis of how the predictions were so far off. Is there a consensus? Or at least a prevalent view?

 

Well actually it was closer than you think, there are another 60+ MPs who while not labour MPs, would probably vote with a labour government and aganst a conservative one. Only maybe 8 non conservatives would vote with them most of the time.

[kenberg]

Well actually it was closer than you think, there are another 60+ MPs who while not labour MPs, would probably vote with a labour government and aganst a conservative one. Only maybe 8 non conservatives would vote with them most of the time.

 

I see. So if we break it down as "Conservative or would vote with Conservative" versus "Labour or would vote with Labour" the numbers are substantially closer. Got it, thanks. It is still more of a win for Conservatives than was predicted, but not nearly as dramatically so as I was thinking.

[helene_t]

Well actually it was closer than you think, there are another 60+ MPs who while not labour MPs, would probably vote with a labour government and aganst a conservative one. Only maybe 8 non conservatives would vote with them most of the time.

The parties' percents of the votes were:

Con: 36.9

Lab: 30.5

UKIP: 12.6

Lib: 7.8

SNP: 4.7

Green: 3.8

(which leaves about 3.7 to smaller parties and independents)http://www.cityam.com/215391/general-election-2015-how-parties-would-compare-if-it-were-based-votes-alone

 

The three left-winged parties got more votes than the conservatives, but then again probably most of the UKIP voters are closer to the Conservatives than to Labour. Who knows about LibDem voters. Traditionaly they are progressive but maybe the party's left wing deserted them this time.

 

So if people were simply given a choice between labour and conservatives, probably it would be very close to 50/50. I find it scary that a party that gets 36.9% of the votes can rule without having to compromise on anything. If it had been 30% left extremist party, 40% moderate party and 30% right extremist party maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But some of the conservatives' policies are at the extreme of the spectrum. They will make a lot of decisions which are not supported by a majority of the voters.

 

Note that the system does not always favour the conservatives. In 2005, Labour got 35.2% which was also enough for a majority in the House.

[Cyberyeti]

Another note to Helene's figures. Labour fiddled things significantly over its 13 years in government, I don't know what 36.9% labour 30.5% conservative would have looked like in terms of seats, but I'm guessing 150 seat labour majority. The libdems prevented the conservatives fixing this during the last parliament (in a fit of pique after the conservatives couldn't get some libdem legislation past their right wing).

 

The current system DOESN'T favour the conservatives, it's just a normal side effect of first past the post.

[Vampyr]

And when you put these facts together, you are nicely suggesting that the UK would be at least as overcrowded as the Netherlands. Darrell Huff would be proud of you. Suggesting something, with numbers that seem to back it up, without actually saying it!

 

How many times must I ask you to stop saying things and then claiming I said it?

 

Anyway, see post 144.

[Trinidad]

The parties' percents of the votes were:

Con: 36.9

Lab: 30.5

UKIP: 12.6

Lib: 7.8

SNP: 4.7

Green: 3.8

 

[]

 

I find it scary that a party that gets 36.9% of the votes can rule without having to compromise on anything.

I agree with that, but on the other hand, imagine that there wouldn't be a district system and these percentages of the votes would have yielded these percentages of seats. What kind of a coalition would you envision that would be backed by 50% of the seats?

 

Somebody needs to govern the country. The district system favors the bigger parties. That makes it easier to form a government. The "one man, one vote" system leads to long negotiations to form a government. But once that government is in place, it will be more balanced/moderate.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Another note to Helene's figures. Labour fiddled things significantly over its 13 years in government,

 

Do you mean gerrymandering? Is there any evidence that the Tories have done this as well?

[Cyberyeti]

Do you mean gerrymandering? Is there any evidence that the Tories have done this as well?

 

I don't know pre Blair, all I know is that post Blair/Brown, we've had 2 elections, the first was a hung parliament which had the shares of the vote been reversed would have been a 100+ seat labour majority, and I hate to think what this one would have looked like with he shares of the vote reversed.

[cherdano]

It took us a while but we have now arrived at the point where people who disagree with the writer are obviously stupid xenophobic jerks. I have never found it to be a good use of my time to discuss whether or not I am a stupid xenophobic jerk. I also seldom change my mind as a result of being described as a stupid xenophobic jerk.

 

Maybe other people react differently.

I didn't describe anyone in this thread a stupid xenophobic jerk, and certainly not you - I am not sure how you even got the idea. I called Farage a jerk making a political career by appealing to xenophobic fears. Since I don't know him personally, I should have said more accurately that he plays a jerk in public. I apologize for the inaccuracy.

I also stand by my statement that some of the arguments in this thread basically amount to nothing else but "Sorry our country is full" are the same B.S. that Farage has mad a political career off. I didn't see that kind of argument in any of your posts.

 

I am fully aware that I am not convincing anyone to change their mind with my post above. But given what some posters wrote here, I am also sure that Mike's and Rik's posts won't convince them either. I am sure they will be willing to confirm that. On the other hand, when some posters argue along the same non-sensical lines as UKIP, then I am not willing to be polite enough to pretend otherwise.

 

Finally, with all respect, I don't think the US posters in this thread realize just how ridiculous the UK immigration policy is. In the sector I am familiar with (visas for students and scientists) there are a lot of things that are reality over here, and that would instantly kill anyone's political career in the US just for proposing it.

[Cyberyeti]

Finally, with all respect, I don't think the US posters in this thread realize just how ridiculous the UK immigration policy is. In the sector I am familiar with (visas for students and scientists) there are a lot of things that are reality over here, and that would instantly kill anyone's political career in the US just for proposing it.

 

We had a particular problem with fake colleges (some of which didn't have any premises) allowing "students" who never attended a single lecture but just disappeared into the south Asian communities to work illegally to get visas. This was cracked down on in the last parliament.

 

It (like many things) was not very well implemented and overdone.

[cherdano]

People are allowed to build houses in/near London, the problem is that there is no profit in building affordable houses, and most housebuilding is private, so this doesn't really help the problem. Councils already stretched can't afford to build houses themselves.

So here is what happens when developers build new fancy apartment complexes targeted towards the fairly rich: all property prices go down, not just those for the fairly rich. Some fairly rich people now decide to move into these new apartment complexes; so now the slightly rich can suddenly afford the flats that would otherwise have been bought by the fairly rich. Etc.

[helene_t]

I agree with that, but on the other hand, imagine that there wouldn't be a district system and these percentages of the votes would have yielded these percentages of seats. What kind of a coalition would you envision that would be backed by 50% of the seats?

 

Somebody needs to govern the country. The district system favors the bigger parties. That makes it easier to form a government. The "one man, one vote" system leads to long negotiations to form a government. But once that government is in place, it will be more balanced/moderate.

Maybe, if people really think it is an advantage that the biggest party is likely to get a majority of the seats, one could consider the Frensh/Russian system (a president is elected by absolute majority and has strong powers) or the Turkish/Greek system (the biggest party is getting a numbe of bonus seats). This achieves the same but in a less arbitrary way which is less susceptible to tactical voting and gerrymandering.

 

Personally I think it is a disadvantage. In the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, people know what they can expect from the government because regardless of who wins, most legislation will require a compromise between left and right because neither is happy to be dependent on splinter parties.

 

So proportional representation is more democratic and also gives more stability. I concede that it isn't good for making fast, bold political decisions. In the second Gulf war, it took the Danish government more than half a year to decide to send a single gunboat to the gulf because every conceivable interest group needed to be heard. I can imagine that people in the Danish military find that frustrating and would prefer a system that gave a single party, maybe even a single person, power to make decisions on behalf of the state.

[Cyberyeti]

So here is what happens when developers build new fancy apartment complexes targeted towards the fairly rich: all property prices go down, not just those for the fairly rich. Some fairly rich people now decide to move into these new apartment complexes; so now the slightly rich can suddenly afford the flats that would otherwise have been bought by the fairly rich. Etc.

 

Nope, people buy them as investments then rent them out

[Cyberyeti]

So proportional representation is more democratic and also gives more stability. I concede that it isn't good for making fast, bold political decisions. In the second Gulf war, it took the Danish government more than half a year to decide to send a single gunboat to the gulf because every conceivable interest group needed to be heard. I can imagine that people in the Danish military find that frustrating and would prefer a system that gave a single party, maybe even a single person, power to make decisions on behalf of the state.

 

I quote Israel as a counter example. Hey let me get into bed with these religious extremists and have to let the settlers commit any atrocities they want so I can stay in power.

[Vampyr]

Nope, people buy them as investments then rent them out

 

Yes, buy-to-let is, frankly, evil and is a serious fa tor in the housing crisis in the Southeast. Also the ever-dwindling nipimber of brownfield sites. They are already pulling down the Battersea Power Station. For those of us of a certain age, this is more an icon of London than the Tower Bridge. It breaks my heart.

[cherdano]

Nope, people buy them as investments then rent them out

Well, then rents become more affordable!

 

If you increase property supply, then property prices will come down. This really shouldn't be controversial.

[StevenG]

Well, then rents become more affordable!

 

If you increase property supply, then property prices will come down. This really shouldn't be controversial.

It's odd how theory and practice so often differ.

[helene_t]

Australia will participate in eurovision. This adds another 6mio sqkm to the continent.

[Cyberyeti]

Well, then rents become more affordable!

 

If you increase property supply, then property prices will come down. This really shouldn't be controversial.

 

It doesn't work like that in practice, I have no idea why. I bought a flat in not a particularly nice location on the outskirts of London because I was working away from home on a contract that seemed it wasn't going to end (this was c 1998). I bought it because the repayments on a 10 year capital/interest mortgage were cheaper than the rent (I was renting an identical flat in the same block previously). When my contract did end after 3 years, I rented it out for a year and then sold it at a >50% profit.

 

The London housing market is stupid, and I suspect that there is no shortage of wealthy foreigners snapping up property in London which is fuelling the prices even more.

[NickRW]

I didn't describe anyone in this thread a stupid xenophobic jerk, and certainly not you - I am not sure how you even got the idea. I called Farage a jerk making a political career by appealing to xenophobic fears. Since I don't know him personally, I should have said more accurately that he plays a jerk in public. I apologize for the inaccuracy.

I also stand by my statement that some of the arguments in this thread basically amount to nothing else but "Sorry our country is full" are the same B.S. that Farage has mad a political career off. I didn't see that kind of argument in any of your posts.

 

I am fully aware that I am not convincing anyone to change their mind with my post above. But given what some posters wrote here, I am also sure that Mike's and Rik's posts won't convince them either. I am sure they will be willing to confirm that. On the other hand, when some posters argue along the same non-sensical lines as UKIP, then I am not willing to be polite enough to pretend otherwise.

 

Finally, with all respect, I don't think the US posters in this thread realize just how ridiculous the UK immigration policy is. In the sector I am familiar with (visas for students and scientists) there are a lot of things that are reality over here, and that would instantly kill anyone's political career in the US just for proposing it.

 

Frankly I don't understand where you are coming from. If the UK immigration policy were anything like as restrictive as that which the U.S. operates, then calling Farage a xenophobe might have some basis in fact. But regardless of what one may or may not think about a particular politician, Wikipedia has this to say about US immigration policy: "On a per capita basis, the United States lets in fewer immigrants than half the countries in the OECD.[1]"

 

Nick

[Aberlour10]

 

So proportional representation is more democratic and also gives more stability. I concede that it isn't good for making fast, bold political decisions. In the second Gulf war, it took the Danish government more than half a year to decide to send a single gunboat to the gulf because every conceivable interest group needed to be heard. I can imagine that people in the Danish military find that frustrating and would prefer a system that gave a single party, maybe even a single person, power to make decisions on behalf of the state.

 

 

Disagree.

 

Even the 2nd Gulf War is the best example that the wide political spectrum is needed for such decissions, to avoid be fast taken in by the liers...like in this case.

 

If military people are frustated or not by the lack of fast decissions is completely irrelevant in a democratic state. In case of the military missions out of the own area they should be silent and wait for the democaratic elected representants of the community, even if it takes longer..

 

 

 

[WellSpyder]

It doesn't work like that in practice, I have no idea why. I bought a flat in not a particularly nice location on the outskirts of London because I was working away from home on a contract that seemed it wasn't going to end (this was c 1998). I bought it because the repayments on a 10 year capital/interest mortgage were cheaper than the rent (I was renting an identical flat in the same block previously). When my contract did end after 3 years, I rented it out for a year and then sold it at a >50% profit.

 

The London housing market is stupid, and I suspect that there is no shortage of wealthy foreigners snapping up property in London which is fuelling the prices even more.

I don't see any evidence in your anecdote that property markets don't work in the way economists might expect them to. Cherdano pointed out that increasing supply would reduce prices. You quote an example where increasing demand has increased prices. Why can't both be true?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't see any evidence in your anecdote that property markets don't work in the way economists might expect them to. Cherdano pointed out that increasing supply would reduce prices. You quote an example where increasing demand has increased prices. Why can't both be true?

 

Because you'd expect as Cherdano says the increase in buy to let to reduce rents, it doesn't, largely because it takes houses out of the "buy to live" sector so ups the demand for rentals from people who'd like to buy. The problem is that people from abroad can be in the buy to let sector, but wouldn't be in the "buy to live" sector. If you made buy to let for overseas investors more difficult/costly, those houses would be available for "buy to live" if it was still profitable to build them.