Member Avatar

I'm not going to rave or rant about these results, just present them:


There are 650 seats in the House of Commons:

  • 18 for Northen Ireland
  • 59 for Scotland
  • 40 for Wales
  • 553 for England

One country voted for this Conservative government. We're all getting what they deserve, like it or not. If this isn't a premise for the break up of the UK I don't know what is.

If you look at the share of the vote, it puts a slightly different perspective on things, but I do get your drift.

CON  36.9
LAB  30.4
UKIP 12.6
LD    7.9
SNP   4.7
GRN   3.8

I think we were all shafted, personally...

Member Avatar

Even Wales has a blue belt. Miliband f***ed up royally.

Well, the real shafting will begin soon enough

Repeal of the Human Rights Act
Introduction of the Snoopers' Charter
Removing a further £12 billion from the social welfare system

Member Avatar

Five years of unfettered pillaging of public resources. Some more gerrymandering. Draconian changes to the law. It all points a bright new blue future, ad infinitum.

The 2013 recommendations for reduction of MPs to 600 from 650:

England -31 to 502 (-7 NW, -5 London, -5 WMids, 4 Yorks/Humber, -3 NE)
Wales -10 to 30
Scotland -7 to 52
N Ireland -2 to 16

So lets see - England regions where Labour are the predominant seat holders.
Wales - predominantly Labour - reduction of, yes 25% of seats
Scotland - SNP seats (although not known at time of recommendations)
N Ireland - Who knows?

This may be the biggest a**-f*** in modern times. If this was doone in any other country, then the UK press would be full of it, saying how overtly corrupt that government was.

The population in mid-2013 was

England   53.9 (million)
Scotland   5.3
Wales      3.1
N Ireland  1.8


With 600 seats in parliament divided fairly among the population there would be 1 seat for every 106833 people.
Based on this the allocation of seats to countries would be:

England   505
Scotland   49
Wales      29
N Ireland  17

So the proposal of

England   502
Scotland   52
Wales      30
N Ireland  16

doesn't look hugely wrong to me. What do you think it should be?

Member Avatar

I know very well the rationale behind it, and we know very well why this recommendation was made in the way it was made. Even at the time it was estimated that this gerrymandering, or whatever term apologists would want to give it, would probably amount to 20 additional Conservative seats. The reduction in number is fair enough - how about reducing it to just 4? One from each country? Should save a shed-load of money. No, but that's purile I know. About as purile as continuing with the way things are, or may come to be in 2018.

The reason it's wrong is the fact that 3 countries have absolutely no say in UK-wide policy. What's the point of Wales sending 30 MPs or NI sending 16 MPs to parliament? Complete waste of time.

How much did we hear about Wales or Northern Ireland in this election? Nothing. Why? Because the result of the vote there had absolutely no effect on the outcome whatsoever.

Had Labour won every seat in Wales and Scotland (and taking into account the resulting losses suffered by Conservatives), they still would have lost to the Tories by 14 seats.

So, with this state of affairs, one country rules, the others must follow. Fine if you're the Big One that must be obeyed, not so good if you're constantly having to fight for scraps with two conflicting governments. Even though the Tories increased their overall % in Wales, they will never take it. They will never take Scotland. So guess where they'll spend the money - in constituencies lost to them, or those that prove faithful (or marginal)?

If you live in Wales or Scotland, you will have had experience of what it's really like to live under a Conservative government. If you don't, perhaps it'ss not so evident. Believe me, it's not good. Not good at all. This time they won't have the LD's to temper them.

The reason it's wrong is the fact that 3 countries have absolutely no say in UK-wide policy.

It seems to me that a UNITED Kingdom run as a democracy should NOT aim to give each country an equal say but SHOULD attempt to give each person an equal say. One man one vote means a Welshman should have the same influence as an Englishman and since there are fewer Welsh than English then Wales as a whole should not have the same say as England.

Nobody (I hope) would suggest that the number of seats a group should have should be based on that group's race or colour so why should it be based on their nationality? What could be fairer than basing it on their numbers?

If you live in Wales or Scotland, you will have had experience of what it's really like to live under a Conservative government. If you don't, perhaps it'ss not so evident.

Clearly it is not evident from here so can you give some figures to show that? In what way are things worse in the other 3 countries than in England? For example, is government spending per head lower in Wales or Scotland than in England?

Member Avatar

Yes it is lower with regard to need. A government commission showed that Wales, due to the Barnett formula, was underfunded by 300 million. A drop in the ocean in UK-wide terms, not so for Wales. The findings from this commission were then rejected by the government.

Nobody is suggesting anything about race/colour but the equity of representation of the various countries making up the so-called UK. We have governor-generals, called Secretaries of State for Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland. There doesn't seem to be one for England. It was deemed necessary to create separate parliaments and assemblies for these countries with their own first ministers. There doesn't seem to be the need for an English one. All we see is England = UK. The terms in the media are interchangeable. Amongst many of the English, these terms seem to be interchangeable. Britain is a homogenous mass.

During the Scotland Independence and its aftermath, the media was full of the tensions between Scotland and 'England', with quotes like Scottish tail wagging an English dog - why English? Nothing about the tensions between Scotland and the rest of the UK, as if the other two countries didn't matter. It's this very attitude and the marginalisation of influence on the UK stage that will be the driving force for the break-up of the UK.

Even Wikipedia seems to think the same. You can find Elections_in_Wales, Elections_in_Scotland, but try typing Elections_in_England and lo and behold Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom pops up. Heh heh.

Democracy seems to work very well for England, with its enormous 500+ MPs as it can do as it pleases, sod the rest of us. Am I bitter? Do I have a chip on my shoulder. Bloody right I do. Sore loser? Maybe, if it was a fair fight.

The situation in the UK with "countries" within a "country" is pretty unique but the end result may not be that different from other countries with states or provinces. People in a small state or province have fewer representatives overall than a large one and may feel that they don't have much influence.

A difference in the UK is that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own very distinct culture and history and see themselves as separate and different (more like a separate country). There is also the huge difference in population between England and the other three.

One or both situations also exist in other countries (e.g. culturally here in the Canada with the French population in the Province of Quebec or in Spain with the Basques) but maybe not in the same combination of being distinct and relatively small. For most States and Provinces, the divisions are arbitrary and the cultural differences aren't that great.

I think that the tyranny of the majority applies in a lot of places. In multi-party situations, it doesn't require support from the majority of the electorate in order to form a government so that also seems to be a flaw in the system, given the limited influence that the other parties and their MPs have once a government is formed.

Electors tend to support the status quo rather than take a chance on the unknown. Thus, there has to be a pretty compelling case for something like the Scottish referendum to succeed. There are some benefits in being part of a larger country rather than being a tiny independent country (e.g. defense from external threats) but the trend has been in the other direction because those threats have diminished since the end of WW2. If a strong majority in each of the three "countries" felt as you do, then there would probably be some action. There is a lot of voter apathy so it's very hard to get that majority.

Member Avatar

You've pretty much got that right chrishea. I was talking to a lot of people in Barcelona recently and they were feeling the same frustration with the Spanish government, calling for an independent Catalonia. The Basques have been there for decades.

Reading back my last comment, it seems a little strong and may appear a little anti-English. That was not my intention. This has nothing to do with the "English" per se, it has to do with the marginalisation of all "others".

It was interesting to read about a number of MPs coming around to the notion of a federal UK - each having its own Parliament and running the over-arching entity on an equal footing.

An interesting proposition. However, I can't see an English parliament ceding numbers to inferior parliaments. Neither would the 'majority' be able to exercise their right to jump out of Europe if the other three wanted to stay in.

So, seems like the choice will be the status quo or independence and break up of an outdated entity in decline. Every imperialist tin-pot nation with dreams of taking over the world eventually succumbs and becomes part of history, however Great they think they are.

Tony Abbot is making Australia look stupid I am going to kick his a** and take over

Member Avatar

Tony Abbot has been a figure of fun for years. All non-Brits are probably thinking the same about Cameron. I wonder if the Americans realised what impact Bush Jr had on their credibility. Italians had Berlusconi. Heh heh - a man who's moral compass was so messed up he couldn't find his own arse - but he was so very funny to outsiders. Political leaders should be picked by people from other countries. Heh heh. Now that would be funny.

If other countries would pick your leaders, they would pick the clowns you have.

I wonder if the Americans realised what impact Bush Jr had on their credibility.

The smart ones did. Apparently Jeb Bush isn't one of them. He publicly stated he'd govern the same way his brother did.

Member Avatar

If other countries would pick your leaders, they would pick the clowns you have.

He he. I doubt anybody would pick a warmongering buffoon as the leader of the last remaining superpower. Would they? That clown is all theirs. That wasn't even funny.