UK general election 2017

[Pann]

So what you're saying is - Even WITHOUT First Past the Post, May would have still beat Corbyn pretty easily?

If ALL of the losing parties teamed up together to get more votes than the "winning" party and make their own government we'd be the laughing stock of the world. I find it hilarious when people suggest this.

Could we call them "The Legion of Losers"?

All the losing parties (as you put it) can already team up and form a government if their total number of seats is greater than the "winning" party's. To be honest after the last year or so I am not sure how we can become more of a laughing stock.

[Mayhem]

All the losing parties (as you put it) can already team up and form a government if their total number of seats is greater than the "winning" party's. To be honest after the last year or so I am not sure how we can become more of a laughing stock.

Another snap election within 2 months would do the trick.

[rogueMatthias]

Another snap election within 2 months would do the trick.

I think another election so soon would be too much of a huge gamble for ALL parties. I think everyone's too nervous how it would go to call one.

[dribbles]

Another snap election within 2 months would do the trick.

No need, the English mother of parliaments is settled until well after Brexit.

Funny people bring up we are a laughing stock after our decisive election with us having a well defined full democracy and all, here's something for you. What do Italy, France, Portugal, Estonia, Czechs, Belgium, Cyprus, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Croatia, Hungary all have in common? Is that over half the EU?

Answer here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Yes you got it, over half the EU is defined as having a "flawed democracy". The EU should put its house in order. That is a laughing stock.

[Natylyaz]

No need, the English mother of parliaments is settled until well after Brexit.

Funny people bring up we are a laughing stock after our decisive election with us having a well defined full democracy and all, here's something for you. What do Italy, France, Portugal, Estonia, Czechs, Belgium, Cyprus, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Croatia, Hungary all have in common? Is that over half the EU?

Answer here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Yes you got it, over half the EU is defined as having a "flawed democracy". The EU should put its house in order. That is a laughing stock.

And yet the UK is still in the fog as to what the majority actually wants from Brexit.
General Elections are about the MPs and all of their ideas, not solely about Brexit.
Yet the government is taking the country out of the union and out of the single market, even though the proportion of Britons actually willing to leave the single market can be 20% or 70%.
Nice democracy.

[dribbles]

And yet the UK is still in the fog as to what the majority actually wants from Brexit.
General Elections are about the MPs and all of their ideas, not solely about Brexit.
Yet the government is taking the country out of the union and out of the single market, even though the proportion of Britons actually willing to leave the single market can be 20% or 70%.
Nice democracy.

85% of people in the last election voted for parties with a manifesto pledge to leave the single market. It is better that the 15% who lost decide?

[Natylyaz]

85% of people in the last election voted for parties with a manifesto pledge to leave the single market. It is better that the 15% who lost decide?

This is exactly what I mentioned in my comment, people voted for MPs on a wide range of topics and issues, the General Elections were not a Brexit referendum.
Plus, many people voted Labour only to oust the Tories, without consideration for the Labour manifesto on Brexit.
This is a logical fallacy to extract the single market pledge from a complete manifesto and give it any legitimacy.
The only unarguable way to stop people from fighting over this is a referendum about being inside or outside the Single Market. Every other current option is not democratic, as it's an erroneous interpretation by the government.

[Mayhem]

Ha, russia is listed as authoritarian. This will come in handy.

[dribbles]

This is exactly what I mentioned in my comment, people voted for MPs on a wide range of topics and issues, the General Elections were not a Brexit referendum.
Plus, many people voted Labour only to oust the Tories, without consideration for the Labour manifesto on Brexit.
This is a logical fallacy to extract the single market pledge from a complete manifesto and give it any legitimacy.
The only unarguable way to stop people from fighting over this is a referendum about being inside or outside the Single Market. Every other current option is not democratic, as it's an erroneous interpretation by the government.

We already had a referendum just 1 year ago in which it was clear that a vote for Brexit was a vote to leave the single market. Some would say that the general *are you sure about Brexit" election was only called because of the closeness of that original referendum.

All parties who advocated staying in the EU at the general election in whatever manner lost voter share. The result of that was clearly for Brexit. How many more referenda/elections do we need? It is already a win for Brexit in best out of three, do we really need to go for best out of 5?

I don't believe anyone can say people only voted Labour to oust the Tories, it is just as likely they voted Labour because they agree with Corbyn on his vision for Brexit.

[draykorinee]

The UK on the other hand has a strong and stable government days after the election.

Lol, you're a parody. We have a weak and floppy government who now can not put anything through without a massive risk of failure and have lost ALL credibility.

- - - Updated - - -

So what you're saying is - Even WITHOUT First Past the Post, May would have still beat Corbyn pretty easily?

If ALL of the losing parties teamed up together to get more votes than the "winning" party and make their own government we'd be the laughing stock of the world. I find it hilarious when people suggest this.

Could we call them "The Legion of Losers"?

No, thats not what they're saying. Without FPTP, in a system where you chose your preferences in order, the likelihood is that a more left leaning party would have won seeing as the vast majority of voters voted for either SNP/Green/LIb/Labour. I don't think you have a good grasp of politics. May would have been destroyed. She only managed 42% vs 40% of the vote in FPTP against unelectable Corybn, imagine the obliteration had we had a more democratic system.

What you're saying is you would rather see a system where a minority government with a bare 2% advantage has power over a larger elected coalition government with upwards of 55% of the vote, sounds like a great democracy.

[Dhrizzle]

So what you're saying is - Even WITHOUT First Past the Post, May would have still beat Corbyn pretty easily?

If ALL of the losing parties teamed up together to get more votes than the "winning" party and make their own government we'd be the laughing stock of the world. I find it hilarious when people suggest this.

Could we call them "The Legion of Losers"?

If having a government that better represents the votes of the electorate makes us a laughing stock then I'll be more than happy to be laughed at. Personally though I find it a better system than the one where our "strong and stable" government is propped up by a group of religious fundamentalists who are vastly overrepresented in Parliament when you compare their vote share to seats held.

Are you one of those people who voted against AV because you think it's more important for politics to be a fun game for politicians rather than a good tool for selecting a representative government?

[Kallisto]

Fptp is perfectly fine and always superior, it doesn't reward losers and fringe fruitcakes, what is wrong with that? Would you really want UKIP with almost 100 seats? Even progressive people like me would not wish that on the country....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

So you're perfectly ok with a country being run by a government which at times held areas with less than 30% of the actual vote. That's not a democratic state at all. It's quite possible to have a FPTP system in which there are 4 parties vying for control and the winner getting 100% control of parliament with 25.1% of the national vote.

[Natylyaz]

We already had a referendum just 1 year ago in which it was clear that a vote for Brexit was a vote to leave the single market. Some would say that the general *are you sure about Brexit" election was only called because of the closeness of that original referendum.

All parties who advocated staying in the EU at the general election in whatever manner lost voter share. The result of that was clearly for Brexit. How many more referenda/elections do we need? It is already a win for Brexit in best out of three, do we really need to go for best out of 5?

I don't believe anyone can say people only voted Labour to oust the Tories, it is just as likely they voted Labour because they agree with Corbyn on his vision for Brexit.

You cannot say the referendum was clear about the single market, it was not on the ballot paper, therefore this is your interpretation.
This is precisely the problem, so many people disagree about what the vote actually meant, and legally, they are correct. When you sign a contract, you can't interpret the details unilaterally, that's unlawful and enforceable by the other party.
I am not denying the people wanted to leave during the referendum, but there needs to be another referendum on the details of leaving.

You're perfectly right that the Labour vote was perhaps not about the Tories, perhaps it was about Brexit, but perhaps it was not, nobody can tell, only a precise referendum on this matter can.

[Kiri]

We already had a referendum just 1 year ago in which it was clear that a vote for Brexit was a vote to leave the single market. Some would say that the general *are you sure about Brexit" election was only called because of the closeness of that original referendum.

All parties who advocated staying in the EU at the general election in whatever manner lost voter share. The result of that was clearly for Brexit. How many more referenda/elections do we need? It is already a win for Brexit in best out of three, do we really need to go for best out of 5?

I don't believe anyone can say people only voted Labour to oust the Tories, it is just as likely they voted Labour because they agree with Corbyn on his vision for Brexit.

These two votes cannot be compared. The referendum was a single-policy vote, the general election concerned a policy mix with personality mixed in.
Plus an 'are you sure about brexit' election would have had to be called before triggering article 50, not after. Your PC does not ask you if you are sure about wanting to delete anything forever months after deleting it.

[Deleted]

What do Italy, France, Portugal, Estonia, Czechs, Belgium, Cyprus, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Croatia, Hungary all have in common? Is that over half the EU?

The lack of political participation by the public, aka people stopped caring about politics? You should read the index first before posting.

[Deleted]

You cannot say the referendum was clear about the single market, it was not on the ballot paper, therefore this is your interpretation.
This is precisely the problem, so many people disagree about what the vote actually meant, and legally, they are correct. When you sign a contract, you can't interpret the details unilaterally, that's unlawful and enforceable by the other party.
I am not denying the people wanted to leave during the referendum, but there needs to be another referendum on the details of leaving.

You're perfectly right that the Labour vote was perhaps not about the Tories, perhaps it was about Brexit, but perhaps it was not, nobody can tell, only a precise referendum on this matter can.

What would be the point?
Whatever deal is on the table in 16 months, is the one you are getting - Vote it down, and you get full, maximum, hard brexit.

[ranzino]

What would be the point?
Whatever deal is on the table in 16 months, is the one you are getting - Vote it down, and you get full, maximum, hard brexit.

if Britain is wise: as soon they see they cannot get anything fluffy they can really sell at home, they should call it off and ask EU to forget the charade. EU is not so eager to pull the chord and UK could stay. but of course they would lost the latest niceties Cameron negotiated early in 2016.

[Kallisto]

I don't believe anyone can say people only voted Labour to oust the Tories, it is just as likely they voted Labour because they agree with Corbyn on his vision for Brexit.

No it isn't. People were asked as to why they voted Labour and many were "We don't like Brexit and we absolutely despise May's hard Brexit. With Lib Dems being unpopular we're throwing our vote behind Corbyn to stop the Tories." to think 85% of the population supports Brexit is you being delusional express reader again.

- - - Updated - - -

What would be the point?
Whatever deal is on the table in 16 months, is the one you are getting - Vote it down, and you get full, maximum, hard brexit.

Simple, vote it down cause it's stupid and realise that until the final decision is made at the end of the 2 years we can revoke article 50 and tell the 52% we're not crazy.

[Deleted]

if Britain is wise: as soon they see they cannot get anything fluffy they can really sell at home, they should call it off and ask EU to forget the charade. EU is not so eager to pull the chord and UK could stay. but of course they would lost the latest niceties Cameron negotiated early in 2016.

Simple, vote it down cause it's stupid and realise that until the final decision is made at the end of the 2 years we can revoke article 50 and tell the 52% we're not crazy.

Problem is, in 16 months, you aren't going to be able to revoke your notice, that door will be closed by then.

[ranzino]

Problem is, in 16 months, you aren't going to be able to revoke your notice, that door will be closed by then.

Nope, not in 16 months, that is nov 2018. When is Great Repeal Bill on schedule; it should be a breaking point in the process, no ?