# Election coverage done right: Covering yesterday's UK vote



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I find the US media increasingly inane and continue to be impressed by how it's done on the other side of the Atlantic


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I have always said that the absolute worst thing that you can do for an American is put a date on a calendar and call it something. As a nation, we have a stunning inability to turn off hype and build up. Be it the Super Bowl, election, NCAA tourney, St. Paddy's Day, Black Friday. Whatever. A date and an even turns us into collective morons.

I wish we could do things like the Brits do in the election arena. It might even have the pleasant side effect of having people pay attention to what our leaders are doing..


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

What's surprising to me is how wrong the polls were. If I recall, they were quite wrong in the Scottish matter as well last year. 

Is there something in UK electoral politics that does not give itself to accurate polling?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

SG_67 said:


> What's surprising to me is how wrong the polls were. If I recall, they were quite wrong in the Scottish matter as well last year.
> 
> Is there something in UK electoral politics that does not give itself to accurate polling?


The polls have been less about reflecting opinion and more about shaping it.
The pollsters work to an agenda.

Aside from the skewed polls, a far larger problem is the blatant unfairness of the current set up.
The percentage of the vote for each party has little relation to the amount of seats they ended up with.
SNP got 1,454,436 votes, 4.7%, and they they get 56 seats.
UKIP got 3,875,409 votes, 12.6% of total votes cast, and yet they end up with just 1 MP.




​


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Is there some kind of deal with the Scots where they get a guaranteed number of seats in Parliament?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I have always said that the absolute worst thing that you can do for an American is pu*t a date on a calendar and call it something. A*s a nation, we have a stunning inability to turn off hype and build up. Be it the Super Bowl, election, NCAA tourney, St. Paddy's Day, Black Friday. Whatever. A date and an even turns us into collective morons. QUOTE]
> 
> I hadn't thought about it in just those terms, but you have something there.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Is there some kind of deal with the Scots where they get a guaranteed number of seats in Parliament?


Yes there is. The Scots enjoy many advantages that are denied to the English. It's quite unfair.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Is there some kind of deal with the Scots where they get a guaranteed number of seats in Parliament?


The UK is divided into a large number of areas called constituencies, each of which has approximately the same number of inhabitants, each one of which elects a Member of Parliament. Scotland has 59 constituencies, so returns 59 MPs.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The UK is divided into a large number of areas called constituencies, each of which has approximately the same number of inhabitants, each one of which elects a Member of Parliament. Scotland has 59 constituencies, so returns 59 MPs.


Scottish constituencies have a smaller average number of inhabitants than English constituencies, giving them a disproportionate number of MPs (like the Welsh). These arrangements were originally introduced in order to favour the Labour Party, but things seem to have boomeranged slightly - it's rather comical. And the SNP, in pursuit of its stated wish to 'lock out the Tories', has achieved the exact opposite result. Of slightly more concern to some is that Scotland is now a one-party state. Had the separatists won the recent independence referendum, Scotland would now be rather like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, only more so. Supporters of the SNP seem to see the English much as Mugabe's henchmen view the white farmers.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Scottish constituencies have a smaller average number of inhabitants than English constituencies, giving them a disproportionate number of MPs (like the Welsh). *These arrangements were originally introduced in order to favour the Labour Party*, but things seem to have boomeranged slightly - it's rather comical. And the SNP, in pursuit of its stated wish to 'lock out the Tories', has achieved the exact opposite result. Of slightly more concern to some is that Scotland is now a one-party state. Had the separatists won the recent independence referendum, Scotland would now be rather like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, only more so. Supporters of the SNP seem to see the English much as Mugabe's henchmen view the white farmers.


Rather like the constituency changes under Thatcher to benefit the Tories. 
The rest of your post I agree with.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Rather like the constituency changes under Thatcher to benefit the Tories.
> The rest of your post I agree with.


My understanding was that those changes had been long overdue. A Boundary Commission - an independent body - was set up to recommend constituency changes on a regular basis to adjust boundaries for changes in population. I'm not sure there was ever any intention or even suggestion that these would necessarily benefit the Tories, although that may have been the outcome given the pre-existing imbalances. The Liberal Democrats opposed further boundary changes in the last Parliament, basically as an act of pique for losing the vote on PR.


----------



## Repington (Dec 9, 2014)

The leader in 'The Times' (note the title - there is no such newspaper as The Times of London) on Monday observed that the constituency of the Western Isles in Scotland contains 22,000 voters and returns one MP whilst the Isle of Wight in England contains some 110,000 voters and returns one MP.
The imbalance of constituency size has long been an issue which self-interest caused both Labour and the Liberal Democrats with their significant Scottish representation to evade; that no longer stands.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The UK system is just one big joke. About 1.5 million Scots voted for the SNP, and that gave them 56 seats, which gives them a huge vocie in the affaris of the rest of the UK.
Whereas about 3.5 million people voted for UKIP and that gave UKIP just ONE seat in Parliament.
The sooner the UK goes over to one of the proportional representation systems the better . whereby seats are alotted by percentage of the popular vote. 
As it is the SNP is the 3rd largest party in Parliament by seats. Whereas in many, many constituencies won by Con, Lab or LD, UKIP was invariably the 3rd largest party in the popular vote on the day, yet they have fewer seats than LD.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The UK system is just one big joke. About 1.5 million Scots voted for the SNP, and that gave them 56 seats, which gives them a huge vocie in the affaris of the rest of the UK.
> Whereas about 3.5 million people voted for UKIP and that gave UKIP just ONE seat in Parliament.
> The sooner the UK goes over to one of the proportional representation systems the better . whereby seats are alotted by percentage of the popular vote.
> As it is the SNP is the 3rd largest party in Parliament by seats. Whereas in many, many constituencies won by Con, Lab or LD, UKIP was invariably the 3rd largest party in the popular vote on the day, yet they have fewer seats than LD.


That suggests to me that our current system is far better than the alternative!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The UK system is just one big joke. About 1.5 million Scots voted for the SNP, and that gave them 56 seats, which gives them a huge vocie in the affaris of the rest of the UK.
> Whereas about 3.5 million people voted for UKIP and that gave UKIP just ONE seat in Parliament.
> The sooner the UK goes over to one of the proportional representation systems the better . whereby seats are alotted by percentage of the popular vote.
> As it is the SNP is the 3rd largest party in Parliament by seats. Whereas in many, many constituencies won by Con, Lab or LD, UKIP was invariably the 3rd largest party in the popular vote on the day, yet they have fewer seats than LD.


I agree with you. If I had voted UKIP, I would be feeling very aggrieved at the moment.

However political parties have to work with the system as it is - the one positive thing about first past the post is that it has usually given the UK a settled government.

One positive aspect of the large UKIP vote, as far as I am concerned anyway, is that in the referendum those votes will count and they may take us out of the EU mess.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> That suggests to me that our current system is far better than the alternative!


How so? The current UK system means that a minorty government (i.e. seats to leading party) is a probability every time, simply because they chose to represent and win certain seats.

How can it be fair that the party with the largest number of seats, butn ot a majoirty of the seats and with a minority percentage in the vote on the day, for example 35% of the vote and for arguments sake 35% of the seats gets the chance to build a government first? Ludicrous!

Surely, under the curent UK system a first step towards fairness, rather than going straight into a PR system would be to allow coalitions to be submitted (after the results are in) based on combined number of seats + percentage of vote.

A not unlikely scenario: 
Conservatives: 320 seats (majority is at 326)
Labour: 280 seats
SNP: 50 seats
LD: 5

How is it fair that the Tories, due to having won more seats than the other parties on the day get first chance to build a coalition with LD for a total of 325 seats, when Labour + SNP in this scenario could build a coalition with 350 seats!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

No one ever votes for a coalition government, however, so that could hardly be said to be a fair or satisfactory outcome, except for those who are undecided.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Langham said:


> No one ever votes for a coalition government, however, so that could hardly be said to be a fair or satisfactory outcome, except for those who are undecided.


Yet, coalition govts, of necessity, exist all over the world.


----------



## Repington (Dec 9, 2014)

The current First Past the Post system can, and will be, made 'fairer' through a move to roughly equal-sized constituencies of around 100,000 electors in each instance. Such a move would drastically reduce the Scottish representation at Westminster; which is out of all proportion to its actual electorate, even before a Gladstonian reduction of representation at Westminster in exchange for Scottish devolution is ennacted.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Langham said:


> One positive aspect of the large UKIP vote, as far as I am concerned anyway, is that in the referendum those votes will count and they may take us out of the EU mess.


The vote will be rigged, the country will vote to stay in, and Britain will be ended. It is only a matter of time in any case, although I for one will be sorry to see its light finally extinguished. Our politicians are traitors, and our people vote repeatedly for their own destruction.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> The vote will be rigged, the country will vote to stay in, and Britain will be ended. It is only a matter of time in any case, although I for one will be sorry to see its light finally extinguished. Our politicians are traitors, and our people vote repeatedly for their own destruction.


A rigged vote is not a possibility that I would dismiss out of hand, but I am now feeling somewhat optimistic about the outcome. Anyone can see the euro is doomed, and with it the EU.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> The vote will be rigged, the country will vote to stay in, and Britain will be ended. It is only a matter of time in any case, although I for one will be sorry to see its light finally extinguished. Our politicians are traitors, and our people vote repeatedly for their own destruction.


Sounds very much like the present situation in the US.
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

This week's New York Review of Books has what seems an informative analysis of the British election and what it means. Perhaps someone who knows enough to follow the arguments will read and comment on the article. Otherwse I'll have to re-read it and try to figure things out myself.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Why is it cute patriotic nationalism when the Welsh say "Wales for the Welsh" or when the Scots say "Scotland for the Scottish" yet when the English say "England for the English" it is suddenly racist and fascist. English MPs can't vote in the Houses in Scotland or Wales yet the opposite is true. As a former resident of London, I'd like nothing more than for Wales & Scotland to Foxtrot Oscar and stop sponging off England. England doesn't need either of them THEY conversely very much need England.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Why is it cute patriotic nationalism when the Welsh say "Wales for the Welsh" or when the Scots say "Scotland for the Scottish" yet when the English say "England for the English" it is suddenly racist and fascist. English MPs can't vote in the Houses in Scotland or Wales yet the opposite is true. As a former resident of London, I'd like nothing more than for Wales & Scotland to Foxtrot Oscar and stop sponging off England. England doesn't need either of them THEY conversely very much need England.


It's very depressing, but I fear little can be done. Britain is a remarkable country - at least it was. Unfortunately a country that has 1215 and 1689, to name but two, in its blood is very inconvenient for today's elites. And so it must be destroyed.

I am not familiar with Sweden, so please correct me if I am wrong. But from time to time one reads really quite disturbing things regarding Sweden, that suggests that she too is possessed by a kind of death wish. The nations that built the modern world seem determined to commit suicide.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> The vote will be rigged, the country will vote to stay in, and Britain will be ended. It is only a matter of time in any case, although I for one will be sorry to see its light finally extinguished. Our politicians are traitors, and our people vote repeatedly for their own destruction.





Langham said:


> A rigged vote is not a possibility that I would dismiss out of hand, but I am now feeling somewhat optimistic about the outcome. Anyone can see the euro is doomed, and with it the EU.


Unsavoury antics in Brussels today as the TTIP so-called "Free Trade" agreement starts to meet more than anticipated opposition.
Given that Mr. Farage is leading the charge in the European Parliament, perhaps the powers that be might feel a bit of regret about those South Thanet ballot boxes going astray for several hours in the middle of the night.



Il Signor Crispone said:


> It's very depressing, but I fear little can be done. Britain is a remarkable country - at least it was. Unfortunately a country that has 1215 and 1689, to name but two, in its blood is very inconvenient for today's elites. And so it must be destroyed.
> 
> I am not familiar with Sweden, so please correct me if I am wrong. But from time to time one reads really quite disturbing things regarding Sweden, that suggests that she too is possessed by a kind of death wish. The nations that built the modern world seem determined to commit suicide.


Very true, and it seems the Swedish have even more of a death wish than the British establishment. In any event they are pursuing their own demise with more vigour.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> I am not familiar with Sweden, so please correct me if I am wrong. But from time to time one reads really quite disturbing things regarding Sweden, that suggests that she too is possessed by a kind of death wish. The nations that built the modern world seem determined to commit suicide.


You are wrong.

What exactly have you heard that is so disturbing as to constitute a death wish?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Odradek said:


> Very true, and it seems the Swedish have even more of a death wish than the British establishment. In any event they are pursuing their own demise with more vigour.


What is very true? Please explain. I live here & life is fine, society functions. What have you heard? If you are specific I can say yay or nay.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

These statistics, if true, would strike me as very disturbing. Rather strange as well, given the fact that Sweden has a reputation for being exceptionally progressive when it comes to women's rights.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/top-5-countries-highest-rates-rape-1434355

From what I can tell from, reported cases have increased from an average of 1,100 or 1,200 per year in the 80s to 6,400 in 2014.


----------

