UK Election Results (2017)

[Pauline]

I know we are not supposed to talk politics but I think we discuss the election results without getting political, and it is very interesting.

In the UK we vote for our local MP, not for the party leader as we do in the US. Which ever party gets a majority of seats (MPs) wins, but it is possible to get the most seats and not have a majority. There are 650 seats and a party has to have 326 seats to have a majority be the clear winner.

In 2015 there was a national election and the Conservatives won with a majority. Previously in the 2010 election (which happened the day we arrived in the UK) produced a coalition government. The Conservatives had the most seats, but not enough for a majority, so formed an official coalition with a smaller party, the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) to form the government. In the 2015 election the Lib Dems received very few seats because their supporters were very disappointed in how they worked in the coalition. So this 2015 election gave a great result for the Conservatives.

The main opposition to the Conservatives is Labour. After losing the 2015 election, the Labour party went a bit chaotic and ended up with a very left-wing leader, Jeremy Corbin (sort of a UK Bernie Saunders).

Then in 2016 we had the EU Referendum where both the Conservatives and Labour were on the side of remaining in the EU. But the vote was to leave the EU, but a small majority. The leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, resigned because he had wanted to remain. A new leader took over, Theresa May.

So Theresa May has a majority government and does not need to call an election until 2020. She has to take the country through the Brexit negotiations.

In May 2017 she decides to hold a snap election saying she wanted a mandate to go strong into the Brexit talks, but most likely because they were way up in the polls and thought they could get a bigger majority, plus a clear sign from the public that they wanted a hard Brexit (meaning no EU freedom of movement).

And last week was the vote. The Conservatives lost 13 seats instead of gaining seats, but still had the most seats (318). Labour did very well, gaining 30 seats (for a total of 262), but did not win. The Lib Dems gained 4 seats (total of 12). Because no party has 326 or more seats, the result is a "Hung Parliament".

A big surprise was the Scottish National Party (SNP) which got almost every seat in Scotland in 2015, but this time lost 21 seats to the Conservatives and Labour (SNP now has 35 seats).

The Conservatives have the most seats, but not enough to form a majority government. They are 8 seats short. So they are joining with a right wing Northern Ireland part (Democratic Unionist Party - DUP) who have 10 seats, but not going into formal coalition. It would make most sense for them to join again with the Lib Dems and their 12 seats, but because of the earlier coalition that ain't gonna happen.

Joining with the DUP has caused all kinds of controversy because the DUP is anti-same-sex-marriage, anti-climate-change and something else that I am forgetting. Also getting involved in Northern Ireland politics is tricky because of the fragile state of affairs there.

So, there you have it. We had an election that we didn't need to have and it has resulted in a somewhat chaotic situation. And we start Brexit negotiations in 2 weeks.

BBC - Election Results 2017

I am sure the Brits on the board can explain this better than me and I apologize if I glossed over anything.

Posters in a betting shop the day before the election - you could bet on it!​

 

[Ian Sutton]

Hi Pauline
That's a good pretty much non-partisan summary.

Historically small majorities (or small majorities in coalition) can be very difficult to manage, as small subsets of the party now have the ability to stomp their feet and demand their way, otherwise they'll abstain or even vote against the government. Hence suggestions that the plan (the content of the Queen's speech) may be watered down and smaller than normal because it will be harder to get agreement.

Should the government be defeated, in normal instances it's just a defeat and that's that. However there are two instances where the vote may take the form of a 'vote of confidence'. Firstly it may be explicitly called out as a vote of (no) confidence (I'm not sure who & in what circumstance this occurs, as I recall in times gone by, the bill being put back to the house - after initial failure- as confidence bill). Secondly bills that have significant budgetary impact and by definition the Queen's speech is always going to have this, are automatically votes of (no) confidence. If the vote goes against the government in these scenarios then this means automatic cessation of parliament, and unless another grouping can make a case that they have the numbers to govern,.... then it's another election.

The rather amusing scenario leading to this general election, was that the government needed (IIRC) a 2/3rds vote to call the election mid-term. However had they failed to achieve this, there was a genuine possibility that they might call a no confidence vote on themselves which only requires 50% support. It never came to that, but would have been a rather ironic scenario.

regards
Ian

 

[veronicafrance]

One small addition to Pauline's good summary: apart from the previous bad coalition experience, the other very good reason a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition is impossible is that the Lib Dem position on Brexit is very pro-remain, to the point of calling another referendum. So they couldn't possibly sit in government with Theresa "No deal is better than a bad deal" May. The thing about the DUP that you forgot is that NI is the only part of the UK where abortion is completely illegal (yes, you can be sent to jail). If NI women need an abortion they have to travel to England.

I do have a question -- you say "In the UK we vote for our local MP, not for the party leader as we do in the US". But don't you vote directly for local members of congress in the US, hence the equivalent of MPs? It's just that the UK doesn't have an elected head of state, because the queen does that job. On that note, it's ironic that the Conservative campaign was run in a presidential way, pitching Theresa May as a "strong and stable leader", with the party name almost invisible. That fell apart rather spectacularly. Wonder how long she will last?

 

[Pauline]

Yes, anti-abortion, that was what I forgot.

In the US the presidential candidates are on the ballot as well as senators and representatives. So you could vote for a democrat president, but a senator and representative from another party. A president can be elected from a party that is not in control of the senate and house.

We vote for president every 4 years, but we have elections every 2 years. The ones where we don't vote for president are the midterms. Each state has 2 senators that have 6 year terms, so they are not always on the ballot. But the representatives have 2 year terms so they are on every ballot.

And you also vote for state senators and representatives who govern the state, and governor and judges and dog catcher - you vote for a lot of positions.

I grew up in Canada which has a system more like the UK, but most of my voting has been in the US.

 

[Pauline]

The rather amusing scenario leading to this general election, was that the government needed (IIRC) a 2/3rds vote to call the election mid-term. However had they failed to achieve this, there was a genuine possibility that they might call a no confidence vote on themselves which only requires 50% support. It never came to that, but would have been a rather ironic scenario.

Wow!

 

[Pauline]

What about the fixed term parliament act that they brought in after the 2010 election? This was supposed to assure us that we would have 5 years before another election. Yet it was overturned for this election. Does a vote of no confidence also overturn this? Does the 5 years start again from now?

 

[aap519]

Maybe I can help simplify how the UK system differs from the US system.

In the UK they vote for a party platform and it's done with what's called equal proportion representation.

Here's an over simplification of how it works:

Party A gets 40% of the vote and 4 seats in Parliament
Party B gets 30% of the vote and 3 seats in Parliament
Party C gets 20% of the vote and 2 seats in Parliament
Party D gets 10% of the vote and 1 seats in Parliament

Party A and C form a coalition and elect a Prime Minister

Someone mentioned the Queen, but I don't think the Queen really has any power now. She is more of a figurehead.

 

[Ian Sutton]

Hi Pauline
Yes it would overturn it, and yes this parliament is scheduled for a full term, though it would be interesting to look at the betting for whether it will see that term out.
regards
Ian

 

[Ian Sutton]

Maybe I can help simplify how the UK system differs from the US system.

In the UK they vote for a party platform and it's done with what's called equal proportion representation.

Here's an over simplification of how it works:

Party A gets 40% of the vote and 4 seats in Parliament
Party B gets 30% of the vote and 3 seats in Parliament
Party C gets 20% of the vote and 2 seats in Parliament
Party D gets 10% of the vote and 1 seats in Parliament

Party A and C form a coalition and elect a Prime Minister

Someone mentioned the Queen, but I don't think the Queen really has any power now. She is more of a figurehead.

Worth noting that we don't have proportional representation, so in the above example Party A might get 5 seats, Party B 4 seats and party C 1 seat, with Party D getting no seats (making the example still fit).

However it could mean Party A gets 7 seats, Party B 1 seat, Party C no seats and Party D 2 seats (e.g. if party D were SNP with their votes spread across a smaller number of seats).

This 'first past the post system' means we get much less hung parliaments / coalitions than Italy and other nations. That may be a good or bad thing!

 

[aap519]

Worth noting that we don't have proportional representation, so in the above example Party A might get 5 seats, Party B 4 seats and party C 1 seat, with Party D getting no seats (making the example still fit).

However it could mean Party A gets 7 seats, Party B 1 seat, Party C no seats and Party D 2 seats (e.g. if party D were SNP with their votes spread across a smaller number of seats).

This 'first past the post system' means we get much less hung parliaments / coalitions than Italy and other nations. That may be a good or bad thing!

LOL! are you trying to confuse people?

On a serious note, my intention was to simplify the procedure for people from the states, since our system differs quite a bit.

 

[Andrew]

But as I understand it, there isn't much difference between how the U.K. House of Commons and the U.S. House of Representatives are elected, In each one, the winner of the district wins the seat. To take it to extremes, one party could win 51-49 % in every district and get 100% of the seats. I think they don't have the final count for 2017, but Wikipedia shows for 2015 the percentage of MPs versus the vote percentage: the Conservatives had 36.8% of the total vote but 50.8% of the Members of Parliament, because they were first in that percentage of the districts. The differences from the U.S. are that more than two parties often get a significant part of the vote, and that the head of government needs a majority in Parliament, as opposed to the U.S. where a majority in Congress can be in opposition to the separately elected president.

The proportional electoral system, in various forms, is more in use in the various countries of the Continent. Italy has tried several systems mixing proportionality (giving a voice to diverse viewpoints) and awarding the district winner, so a government can be more easily formed.

 

[veronicafrance]

Worth noting that we don't have proportional representation, so in the above example Party A might get 5 seats, Party B 4 seats and party C 1 seat, with Party D getting no seats (making the example still fit).

Yes, the first past the post system not proportional at all. A good example is UKIP, which got millions of votes in 2015, but because they were spread all over the country they only had one MP (who had switched from the Conservatives). General elections are often decided on the vote of a handful of marginal constituencies.

 

[veronicafrance]

Yes, anti-abortion, that was what I forgot.

In the US the presidential candidates are on the ballot as well as senators and representatives. So you could vote for a democrat president, but a senator and representative from another party. A president can be elected from a party that is not in control of the senate and house.

We vote for president every 4 years, but we have elections every 2 years. The ones where we don't vote for president are the midterms. Each state has 2 senators that have 6 year terms, so they are not always on the ballot. But the representatives have 2 year terms so they are on every ballot.

And you also vote for state senators and representatives who govern the state, and governor and judges and dog catcher - you vote for a lot of positions.

I grew up in Canada which has a system more like the UK, but most of my voting has been in the US.

Similar to the French system then, except that the presidential election is separated from the parliamentary one by about six weeks, and we don't have mid-terms as you do.

 

[Pauline]

We have been following the French elections. They have a lot of elections. First for the president, yesterday the first vote for parliament and another parliament vote next weekend if I understand correctly.

This thread has made me realize that in the UK we don't vote for nearly as many people as we did in the US. Just for our local MP, who as @Andrew said is like voting for our representative in the US, and for our local council. Are there votes for town mayor and councillors that I have missed or forgotten?

In this past election many seats were very close. I am trying to find out what percentage of the overall population of the UK voted for each party, but haven't found the info yet.

I looked up to see how they select the council districts and it seems like there is not the gerrymandering here as goes on in the US. It is a bipartisan committee that draws the boundary lines. I am part of West Dorset which is a huge district, but not very populated (94,000).

 

[Ian Sutton]

Hi Pauline
There is a rather awful concept now, where we vote for someone to oversee the police at a regional level. Awful as it brings yet more paid political positions, rather than the role being decided on merit.
Our 2nd house is unelected, and despite murmurings of change here, nothing happened. I would love to see seats in this house allocated by proportional representation, rather than the party in power retiring their own MPs and party donors into the Lords. The role as reviser and sanity checker would still exist, but with proportional representation it would give them more teeth.
regards
Ian

 

[veronicafrance]

Yes, French elections have two rounds. The term for president and parliament is five years, and for local councils seven. Then throw in both departmental and regional council elections, and of course MEPs. We do a lot of voting! And have a lot of politicians, many holding multiple posts -- one of the things Macron is set to change, by limiting the number of posts you can hold and the amount of time you can hold them.

 

[Pauline]

Our 2nd house is unelected, and despite murmurings of change here, nothing happened. I would love to see seats in this house allocated by proportional representation, rather than the party in power retiring their own MPs and party donors into the Lords. The role as reviser and sanity checker would still exist, but with proportional representation it would give them more teeth.

I agree! The unelected House of Lords is a strange thing to me.

Today on the news I heard that the Queen's speech, sort of like the US state of the union, is delayed because the conservatives have to rewrite it because of the election results and it has to be printed on special goat skin parchment which takes 7 days. Then the Queen reads it to the public. Goat skin!

 

[Ian Sutton]

Apparently no goat used (you'll be glad to know):

It is on "goatskin parchment paper" but confusingly it's not actually goatskin. However it is very high quality, thick paper, which is why the ink takes several days to dry, and it then needs to be bound into a booklet, before being sent on to Her Majesty for signing.

 

[aap519]

Do UK tax dollars go to support the Queen or I guess what you call the royal family?

If we had King or Queen in the states, well maybe we have a King now, but I would vote for their ouster

 

[Ian Sutton]

Do UK tax dollars go to support the Queen or I guess what you call the royal family?

If we had King or Queen in the states, well maybe we have a King now, but I would vote for their ouster

It's complex. There is money paid out to the Royal family, but it is accepted that they bring huge revenues into the country through tourism / tourist merchandise etc. as well as performing public functions. In addition the Duchy of Cornwall is part of their possessions and is commercialised in a national range of 'Duchy original' food products, generating significant revenues.

There will be people who make attempts to balance the debits and credits to say whether they are a net benefit or cost, and you might be lucky to find a non-partisan analysis of this