Democracy - UK style

The UK has a first past the post system to elect its MP's. The effect of this is that analysis of the 2019 General Election shows that it took:-

38,OOO votes to elect one Tory MP
51,000 votes to elect one Labour MP
334,000 votes to elect one Liberal Democrat MP
864,000 votes to elect one Green MP
642,000 votes for NO Brexit MP's

Now Tory proposals are afoot to redraw the electoral/constituency boundaries, with the added insult that the current boundaries "favour the Labour Party"!

The proposals are based upon population density statistics that can be demonstrated to exclude about 9m people (who one might expect to favour the Labour Party)

So, democracy, UK style. Alive and well?

I don't think Democracy as such ever arrived. As the franchise broadened, the actual Power Brokers found ever new ways of retaining their power base.

Basically, at least as I see it, we have always had an “oligarchy”, rule by the few (Aristotle defined it as "rule by the wealthy few" which doesn't really change much)

Is democracy alive and well in the USA?

Looking up the Electoral College system, it would seem to be a version of FPTP, in as much as just one extra vote in any state results in ALL "electors" being for the Party with the majority.

I see also that the number of electors for each state is based upon a population census conducted every 10 years?

All that for the President.

Senators and Congressmen?

Democracy alive and well?

We do have a problem with the threat of gerrymandering here.

Tories Using Boundary Changes To Rig Elections

They are already fearful that their performance during this Parliament, and especially the effects of Brexit, which is almost entirely a Tory construct, will impact badly on them at the next General Election.

Not only that, but they are also fearful that Labour now has a leader capable of pulling the party together, organising an electoral pact with the SNP and the Liberal Democrats, and winning back the Red Wall seats. They can see their big majority evaporating in 2024.

Once out of office, they are aware that it is the intention of a Labour government under Kier Starmer to move for Constitutional reform to change to a Proportional Representation system which could be the death knell for them as a party of government. The best they would ever be able to hope for, if it happened, would be a minority part in a coalition.

Also, as part of a coalition, it would be next door to impossible to prevent a Labour / LibDem pact from pushing the country back towards greater ties with Europe, leading in the long term to applying to rejoin the EU.

So the Tories have plenty to fear. For them, using the time in government, and the size of their majority, to maximum effect. Gerrymandering the constituency boundaries is very high on their list of priorities.

What annoys me just a tad is the hypocrisy of many Leave/Brexiteer voters when it comes to the defence of our democracy - in all its aspects.

For them, Democracy began and ended on 23rd June 2016. Prior to that date, in all probability it was never given a thought; after that date "Democracy" was purely the implementation of the result of the Referendum.

This is not simply supposition. I have participated on various Comments sections of UK Newspapers as well as the BBC Online Comments. All attempts to broaden the concept of Democracy is/was dismissed as the "whining of a Remoaner".

Further evidence provided when Boris Johnson shut down Parliament purely to prevent scrutiny of his "Deal" (such as it was) with the EU. This judged illegal by the UK's supreme Law Lords, all well versed in the UK's great democratic traditions. This act of Boris Johnson met with the approval of all the usual Brexiteers on the Forums, as well as condemnation of the Law Lords, all deemed "out of touch" etc etc etc.

I genuinely fear for Democracy. Though even at its best it is not perfect, it is still in my view the best form of government. But it needs protecting.

Taking just one issue and relating it to the actual "self generating" reality of democracy.

Food standards. Based more upon animal welfare than actual food hygiene (although there are issues there) the UK - following EU Standards - has higher standards than the US.

First the Govt declares itself "determined to maintain our current food standards", this when votes are close to being cast, when Brexit and possible Trade Deals with the US are in the offing.

Votes procured, a "Government Spokesperson" declares that perhaps the issue is more one of allowing "consumer choice".

Meanwhile, the predominately Tory Press smudge the issue by constantly referring to "hygiene/food safety" as such rather than animal welfare.

As Trade talks develop with the US the "choice" ploy becomes dominant. The original "determination" - even "pledge" - can now be interpreted as "oh yes, we shall maintain our own standards, but the consumer will be allowed the opportunity to purchase lower standard food imported from elsewhere."

Obviously, those with lower incomes will exercise their "choice" by simply buying the cheapest, while Local Authorities, strapped for cash by constantly shrinking funding by Central Government, will again exercise their "choice" by buying at the cheapest price.

The tories have gone one step further and are likely to introduce a ban on advertising country of origin in food packaging after it became clear that EU countries exporting food to Britain were planning to print the circle of stars flag on cans, packets, etc to show that the product was produced to EU food standards.

Those in the deepest levels of poverty would still be forced by economics to by cheap American products possibly containing insect filth, and other little lovelies, but the greater majority of people might be inclined to pay that little bit more to avoid such horrors.

And this would be bad for sales of US products in Britain. They want big profits and that means big sales.

As food watchdogs and other organisations open people's eyes to what they might be buying, customers would inevitably go looking for the little blue flag with the little yellow stars on it.... and buy that instead.

Just for information.........

9 Disgusting Things That the FDA Consider Acceptable in Food

This sort of information is being disseminated via social media and is slowly starting to gain traction in the public consciousness.

And this is why the British government doesn't want you to know where what you will be buying comes from.

When I circulate this sort of information around my various groups, I always add the caveat: "Would you give this to your children to eat? Boris Johnson wants you to."

Another thread led to the posting of the following:-


During the gridlock on Brexit he (Nigel Farage) held an open-air meeting on the grass outside of the Houses of Parliament and whipped up the crowd with talk of "being in enemy territory". Parliament, the actual heart of the British Constitution, the heart of its Democracy, was being depicted as "the enemy". Why? Because it was actually scrutinising the entire process of all things Brexit, as was its democratic duty. But Mr Farage, like so many Brexiteers, appear to insist that Democracy began and ended on 23/06/2016.


This led to further reflection on Democracy, UK Style.

Looking at the situation THEN, we had the majority of our democratically elected MP's opposing the EU Withdrawal Deal as it then stood. The majority either wished the Deal to be amended and/or for the British Public to be given a final say, with the option of remaining in the EU. Again, the vast majority were against a No Deal Brexit.

The "gridlock" was eventually broken by the calling of a General Election, when the majority of people voted for Parties unhappy with the Deal and who advocated/offered a final say to the people.

Yet, by a "landslide", a Party was elected that is now close to bringing to the people of Britain a No Deal Brexit. Is this Democracy?

Both parties have redrawn the boundaries for political gain. And Jack Straw/ Tony Blair opened up the immigration doors in the hope of boosting the Labour vote. All politicians are self serving.

Interesting Wiki article (quite long) on the age old practice of "gerrymandering" if you are interested. I was trying to Google "Labour Redrawing Boundaries" but got nowhere. Maybe you can help?

And I see that your claims re Jack Straw and Tony Blair are based upon "conspiracy" theories aired in the massively pro-Tory newspapers the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph.

Certainly, no politician is perfect, but some are undoubtedly worse than others.

Again, whatever, two wrongs do not make a right. To base boundary changes on population distribution when analysis demonstrates that 9m people are excluded from the count calls for all supporters of a stronger/fair democracy to be very wary.

I personally remember there being a cry of 'foul play' from the Tories when Labour fiddled with the boundaries ( i was on Labours side at the time and thought the Toriies were whining ).And i confess that the immigration thing was my suspicion at the time and Straw/ Blair haven't admitted it ( mind you, the way Labour tip toe around any transgression by immigrant people definitely points to them valuing their votes ). No, the reason Straw gave for the increase of immigration by Labour was to dilute the population to a degree where English National identification was reduced. He thought he was doing a good thing at the time but i think he should be locked up for treason.

Quite interesting reading about previous changes. The stats show that the share of the votes of the two major parties in GE's fluctuate in a very different proportion to the actual seats gained each time.

This is generally agreed to be a direct result of a First Past The Post system that many now see as virtually corrupt in terms of producing a genuinely democratic result.

Yes, there was a referendum on this not long ago which endorsed the FPTP system, but it must be remembered that for many the winning argument was that it "produced stable government"......

Googling usually draws results, but exactly WHEN reviews and changes were actually done seems to have defeated me. Then I ended up with a PDF download that strained my eyes! (Printing it out not an option given the price of ink cartridges these days)

Thanks

I have found where dear old Boris Johnson cried "foul" over the 1997 Labour landslide result. Not being one to credit Bojo with either integrity or objectivity I was rather inclined to discount his whining. But looking at the stats on how many votes were needed by each of the Parties to gain each MP, maybe for once he had a point. Then again, Labour DID win the popular vote by 43% to 3O%, so not that much of a foul........

It took me less than thirty seconds to find this.

Labour Party Gerrymandering

It's all about asking the right question.

It's worth noting a couple of points from the article which, although it dates back to 2010, is relevant because since 2010 the Tories have been in power so Labour could not have attempted to interfere with the electoral process since the article was written.

The very first paragraph states that only once has an attempt been made to "interfere with the work of the Boundaries Commission in the last 100 years, and that occurred in the 1960's Labour government.

Now... it's relevant that it was NOT an attempt to actually change the boundaries themselves, but an attempt to "work the system" via the Boundaries Commission. Cynical and wrong, but technically, not gerrymandering. That was (in the view of Jim Callaghan) the beauty of the plan..... no allegation of wrongdoing could be placed at the government's door.

The reason it failed was because the House of Lord's blocked the bill and the subsequent election was contested on the basis of the boundaries drawn up in 1950.

I don't know where Offbeat's memories come from, but if they're unsustainable with some sort of evidence then his recollections can reasonably be discounted.


I spent another thirty seconds of my life asking another right question and came up with this.

Tory Gerrymandering In Scotland

Labour did have to apologise to the Scottish Parliament for not intervening in Conservative Party boundary manipulation in Scotland in 1994. Perhaps that's what Offbeat remembers.....

I'd like to spend longer on this but don't have the time right now. No doubt the deeper I dig the more I'd find but this is something to be going on with for now.

Feel free to add to the list of links and let's see what conclusions we can draw from them.