Five days that changed Britain

I think the title is a little premature. Should need re-evaluating on 2015 but these videos basically sum up the election in May between election night and the foundation of the Coalition.

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 6:

Will watch the rest later. I watched the first one.

Yeah, no telling how things will be in a few years. I never imaged Obama turning out like he did. I knew he wasn't going to be good but he took it 50 steps further than i thought. Same goes for Bush. Both failures, imo.

I see nothing but blank squares... why is that?

dblboggie wrote:I see nothing but blank squares... why is that?

What browser do you use? It may be a plugin issue. Or even a Javascript issue.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I see nothing but blank squares... why is that?

What browser do you use? It may be a plugin issue. Or even a Javascript issue.

I use Firefox...

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I see nothing but blank squares... why is that?

What browser do you use? It may be a plugin issue. Or even a Javascript issue.

I use Firefox...

Do you have your plugins updated? If not, go here and grab Windows Media Player plugin and the Adobe Flash.

Also, do you have No Script install as an extension? If so, you may want to look at the settings by right-clicking the icon it places in your status bar and allow YouTube.

Also, go check out my thread on FF extensions. You may find some good stuff in there.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I see nothing but blank squares... why is that?

What browser do you use? It may be a plugin issue. Or even a Javascript issue.

I use Firefox...

Do you have your plugins updated? If not, go here and grab Windows Media Player plugin and the Adobe Flash.

Also, do you have No Script install as an extension? If so, you may want to look at the settings by right-clicking the icon it places in your status bar and allow YouTube.

Also, go check out my thread on FF extensions. You may find some good stuff in there.

Thanks buddy! That fixed it. Just needed Adobe Flash.

Very, very interesting Matt. I watched the entire thing and I have to say that I am glad we do not have a parliamentary form of government - and seek to achieve a balance of powers in other ways. Though, truth be told, our system probably looks just as messy to Brits, if not more so.

I have so many questions, I hardly know where to start. So I am just going to pose one that really stood out for me. About halfway through this, Nick Clegg (sp?) mentions that one of the principle reasons he even got into politics was to reform the election process.

So I will ask you Matt, as you are the person on the ground there - to what reforms was he referring, and do all Liberal Democrats feel this way as well? What is fundamentally wrong with the system in Clegg's view?

And then, when you have time, I'd like to get your feedback on the story and on the new coalition government?

dblboggie wrote: Thanks buddy! That fixed it. Just needed Adobe Flash.

No problem. I'm the Firefox and Computer God in here. Just don't kneel before me is all i ask.

I know the question about Nick Clegg was aimed at Matt but I'll have a go at answering if you don't mind. The electoral reforms the Liberal Democrats want to make have always been concerned with introducing a form of proportional representation. With the first past the post system which operates in the UK it means that in each constituency the MP with the most votes in that area is elected to parliament. Therefore, whilst the lib dems get a lot of votes nationwide, they don't get many MPs in parliament. Proportional representation would change that as MPs would be elected depending upon votes cast proportionally nationwide rather than regionally.

People who don't like PR don't like it on the basis that you are no longer voting for an individual MP to represent you in parliament but for a party. The reforms that the Tories have agreed to have a referendum on do not involve PR but another voting system called Alternative Voting, which is like a cross between first past the post (current system) and PR. In each constituency voters will rate candidates by preference which in theory would also give the lib dems more MPs in parliament. I support the AV system, personally but not PR.

That's it in a very small nutshell.

BecMacFeegle wrote:I know the question about Nick Clegg was aimed at Matt but I'll have a go at answering if you don't mind. The electoral reforms the Liberal Democrats want to make have always been concerned with introducing a form of proportional representation. With the first past the post system which operates in the UK it means that in each constituency the MP with the most votes in that area is elected to parliament. Therefore, whilst the lib dems get a lot of votes nationwide, they don't get many MPs in parliament. Proportional representation would change that as MPs would be elected depending upon votes cast proportionally nationwide rather than regionally.

People who don't like PR don't like it on the basis that you are no longer voting for an individual MP to represent you in parliament but for a party. The reforms that the Tories have agreed to have a referendum on do not involve PR but another voting system called Alternative Voting, which is like a cross between first past the post (current system) and PR. In each constituency voters will rate candidates by preference which in theory would also give the lib dems more MPs in parliament. I support the AV system, personally but not PR.

That's it in a very small nutshell.

I'll pipe in with my own opinion. I'm sure DBL will have a better opinion than me and since it was between them two, the debate.

I feel like you all should have the PR because it keeps it as we have here in the US House of Representatives. Each rep represents a given district in each state. My state has 7. Larger states (population-wise) have far more like California, Texas, Florida or New York.

I hope i'm understanding how your system works. The MP's sound very similar to our US House. Our Senate is a different story and as is your House of Lords.

BecMacFeegle wrote:I know the question about Nick Clegg was aimed at Matt but I'll have a go at answering if you don't mind. The electoral reforms the Liberal Democrats want to make have always been concerned with introducing a form of proportional representation. With the first past the post system which operates in the UK it means that in each constituency the MP with the most votes in that area is elected to parliament. Therefore, whilst the lib dems get a lot of votes nationwide, they don't get many MPs in parliament. Proportional representation would change that as MPs would be elected depending upon votes cast proportionally nationwide rather than regionally.

I do not mind at all my friend. That said, I now have some questions on the bit above. Could you explain the “first past by the post system” to me, and why it is called that? I want to make sure I understand everything here, and I confess I do not know the UK political process at all.

Also you say “in each constituency” – is the U.K. divided into fixed districts or geographical areas which are represented by an MP?

Now you also note that the LibDems get a lot votes nationwide, but not many MPs in parliament, how is that? Are you saying that while the number of people voting for a LibDem nationwide is a considerable number, that within any given constituency it is not enough to win seats in parliament?

BecMacFeegle wrote:People who don't like PR don't like it on the basis that you are no longer voting for an individual MP to represent you in parliament but for a party. The reforms that the Tories have agreed to have a referendum on do not involve PR but another voting system called Alternative Voting, which is like a cross between first past the post (current system) and PR. In each constituency voters will rate candidates by preference which in theory would also give the lib dems more MPs in parliament. I support the AV system, personally but not PR.

That's it in a very small nutshell.

Wow! I gotta say I would not like the idea of voting only for a Party and not on an individual representative! That sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. It sounds like it would put national party politics ahead of regional constituencies concerns, and that these local constituencies would actually have no single member to go to to hold them accountable for meeting those concerns.

This AV system, how does this preferential rating system work? Is it whoever is the most preferred gets the seat? If so, how does that differ from first past the post?

I know I’m asking a lot of questions, but I really want to understand how the system works there, and what the various terms mean.

Ta Bec!

Ok, if I get any of this wrong I'm sure Matt will chip in. Right...

The UK is split into geographical constituencies and politicians who represent the parties, or independents, will stand in those constituencies to be elected to parliament. Now, in the first past the post system, it is simply the MP with the most votes who is elected to parliament. He could get one more vote than his opponent and still be elected.

Our two big parties the Conservatives (Tories) and Labour tend to have established areas where they will always win. The Tories tend to get seats in rural areas, Labour in industrial areas. For some odd reason I don't quite understands, the Lib Dems traditionally take seats in the West Country. Now, the Lib Dems tend to have broad support across the country. They'll often come second in the constituencies.

PR pretty much does away with having regional MPs, you no longer vote for a representative in parliament but for a party. Now, what I've failed to mention is that in the UK we also have local councils within the constituencies - and the council is responsible for running the local area. Councillors are usually members of one of the big parties but they are elected separately. For instance, my MP is a Tory, but my local councillor is a Lib Dem.

AV is like a cross between the two because you are still voting for an MP BUT it also takes party representation into account more and in theory is more representative of people's opinions nationwide. Soo, in AV you have to get above a certain percentage to be elected - if there is no outright winner, then people's second votes are taken into account. Sooo, in a constituency where say, the Conservatives only get 5% more of the vote than the Lib Dems, they take into account the second choice of the voters - and it's unlikely that those who voted for the Labour would have put the Tories as their second choice, but there's a good chance they'd have put the Lib Dems. Add to that the second choices of the voters who voted for independents or smaller parties. And there's the possibility that people won't regard voting for an outside party as a 'wasted' vote.

That's it roughly, anyway. Hope I've explained it ok. Ask away if I haven't, or tell Matt I'm rubbish and ask him to do it instead

TexasBlue wrote:I feel like you all should have the PR because it keeps it as we have here in the US House of Representatives.

I don't like PR because I prefer to have an MP that represents me and where I live in the national Parliament. If we elect a panel, or if Parliament is chosen through the mean average of votes cast, there is no incentive for any MP to fight for local or regional issues.

TexasBlue wrote:Each rep represents a given district in each state. My state has 7. Larger states (population-wise) have far more like California, Texas, Florida or New York.

That might be more preferable (to elect a group as an average of a regional vote) but that could conceivably expand Parliament exponentially in size at a time when people already feel there are too many MPs.

dblboggie wrote:Though, truth be told, our system probably looks just as messy to Brits, if not more so.

tbh I find your system frustrating and I would resent that lack of a good third or fourth option to vote for if I were American. I know Tex has his vote firmly in the Libertarian camp but by the sound of it they have never won a single seat. Over here, small parties can usually rely on getting a seat or two and of course, the Lib-Dems will always take a good chunk for the two main parties to worry about. The Greens have 1 seat and I think there are a couple of independents currently in Parliament too. It seems to me in your system that often a party can win simply by being not as bad as the other party. Over here, because of the growing regionalisation (particularly in the small nationalist parties of Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the English Democrats) people are more like to root for an underdog that might one day become a big contender. This is precisely what happened to Labour in the early part of the 20th century when they broke the Liberal vs Conservative stranglehold.

dblboggie wrote:And then, when you have time, I'd like to get your feedback on the story and on the new coalition government?

Again, because time is pressing I will do that... but not tonight I'm afraid. But I will say this: it is incredibly twee to say that they "changed Britian". Excited us? more than any other election undoubtedly. Incredible? Absolutely. Did we feel more positive in the weeks following? Yes, but then doesn't any election? It is far too early to say that this has "changed Britian". It is not the first coalition and I doubt it will be the last.

BecMacFeegle wrote:For some odd reason I don't quite understands, the Lib Dems traditionally take seats in the West Country.

I think it is generally to do with non-industrial urban areas and the affluent middle classes. The better off towns tend to have Lib-Dem rather than Labour MPs whereas the former industrial centres would elect Labour MPs. Ergo, those highly affluent west country areas (that thrive mostly on the money of tourism and rich retirees) will find that the preferred option is Lib Dem.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Ok, if I get any of this wrong I'm sure Matt will chip in. Right...

The UK is split into geographical constituencies and politicians who represent the parties, or independents, will stand in those constituencies to be elected to parliament. Now, in the first past the post system, it is simply the MP with the most votes who is elected to parliament. He could get one more vote than his opponent and still be elected.

This sounds very much like our election system for U.S. Representatives, which would be the equivalent of your House of Commons.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Our two big parties the Conservatives (Tories) and Labour tend to have established areas where they will always win. The Tories tend to get seats in rural areas, Labour in industrial areas. For some odd reason I don't quite understands, the Lib Dems traditionally take seats in the West Country. Now, the Lib Dems tend to have broad support across the country. They'll often come second in the constituencies.

Hmm... sounds amazingly similar to the U.S., where Republicans (Tories) also do well in rural districts, and Democrats (Labour) do well in heavily urbanized and industrial areas.

BecMacFeegle wrote:PR pretty much does away with having regional MPs, you no longer vote for a representative in parliament but for a party. Now, what I've failed to mention is that in the UK we also have local councils within the constituencies - and the council is responsible for running the local area. Councillors are usually members of one of the big parties but they are elected separately. For instance, my MP is a Tory, but my local councillor is a Lib Dem.

Ah... here we have a difference... I think, but I believe I understand it. Your local councils would be roughly analogous to our local forms of governments within each of the states.

BecMacFeegle wrote:AV is like a cross between the two because you are still voting for an MP BUT it also takes party representation into account more and in theory is more representative of people's opinions nationwide. Soo, in AV you have to get above a certain percentage to be elected - if there is no outright winner, then people's second votes are taken into account. Sooo, in a constituency where say, the Conservatives only get 5% more of the vote than the Lib Dems, they take into account the second choice of the voters - and it's unlikely that those who voted for the Labour would have put the Tories as their second choice, but there's a good chance they'd have put the Lib Dems. Add to that the second choices of the voters who voted for independents or smaller parties. And there's the possibility that people won't regard voting for an outside party as a 'wasted' vote.

That's it roughly, anyway. Hope I've explained it ok. Ask away if I haven't, or tell Matt I'm rubbish and ask him to do it instead

Interesting, AV sounds like it would give the LibDems an advantage they don't currently possess, and is in effect giving them two bites at the apple. Are there any other parties of significant size that are analogous to the Tories?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:For some odd reason I don't quite understands, the Lib Dems traditionally take seats in the West Country.

I think it is generally to do with non-industrial urban areas and the affluent middle classes. The better off towns tend to have Lib-Dem rather than Labour MPs whereas the former industrial centres would elect Labour MPs. Ergo, those highly affluent west country areas (that thrive mostly on the money of tourism and rich retirees) will find that the preferred option is Lib Dem.

That makes perfect sense.

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:PR pretty much does away with having regional MPs, you no longer vote for a representative in parliament but for a party. Now, what I've failed to mention is that in the UK we also have local councils within the constituencies - and the council is responsible for running the local area. Councillors are usually members of one of the big parties but they are elected separately. For instance, my MP is a Tory, but my local councillor is a Lib Dem.

Ah... here we have a difference... I think, but I believe I understand it. Your local councils would be roughly analogous to our local forms of governments within each of the states.

What Dbl is talking about with "local forms of governments" here is that within each state, there are counties.You can look at counties as you do states within the USA. Each county has a seat and commissioner and then each city within those counties have administrators (Mayor's) and city councils.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Though, truth be told, our system probably looks just as messy to Brits, if not more so.

tbh I find your system frustrating and I would resent that lack of a good third or fourth option to vote for if I were American. I know Tex has his vote firmly in the Libertarian camp but by the sound of it they have never won a single seat. Over here, small parties can usually rely on getting a seat or two and of course, the Lib-Dems will always take a good chunk for the two main parties to worry about. The Greens have 1 seat and I think there are a couple of independents currently in Parliament too. It seems to me in your system that often a party can win simply by being not as bad as the other party. Over here, because of the growing regionalisation (particularly in the small nationalist parties of Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the English Democrats) people are more like to root for an underdog that might one day become a big contender. This is precisely what happened to Labour in the early part of the 20th century when they broke the Liberal vs Conservative stranglehold.

In point of fact, our system is slightly more subtle that just Democrats vs. Republicans; therein lies the rub. Within the Democratic Party are various factions that do not always vote with Party on all issues. There are conservative (social and economic), centrist, progressive, and a variety of other shades of grey within the Party. These factions have the same effect that an entirely separate party might on various issues.

This is why, despite having an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate, they had to use parliamentary tricks in the dead of night to get the recent “health care reform” bill passed.

The same goes for the Republican Party. There are a number of Senate Republicans who frequently vote with the Democrats and they have been responsible for handing the Democrats narrow legislative victories when other Democrats abandoned the Party on principle (or due to constituency pressure). Republicans range from social/conservative all the way over to liberal.

So while it may seem that we have a dearth of political parties, in point of fact the many divisions within those parties functions as a check on absolute single party rule... until now that is. The one variable that has come into play recently is an extremely aggressive Executive coupled with an equally ruthless House and Senate leadership who will use any unprecedented maneuver, any trick of procedure, and even bribes to the opposition with pork in the most blatant manner (knowing their deeds will not exposed by the mainstream media), to get their way. It is the first time in my lifetime I’ve seen such a perfect political storm such as this. It is quite the spectacle to behold actually.

At any rate, I digress (as usual), while we have two parties in name, we have many more than that in effect.

And it would appear that what happened to your Labour Party in the early part of the 20th century, is about to happen to our Republican Party in the early part of the 21st. It seems that those underdogs who would be typically overlooked by the electorate are now getting huge support in their districts as people are tiring of the constant deficit spending, their taxpayer dollars being wasted on needless pork projects, the incessant erosion of our constitution, and the increasing government infringements on their liberties by Democrats and Republicans. This should prove to be a very interesting mid-term election to say the very least.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And then, when you have time, I'd like to get your feedback on the story and on the new coalition government?

Again, because time is pressing I will do that... but not tonight I'm afraid. But I will say this: it is incredibly twee to say that they "changed Britian". Excited us? more than any other election undoubtedly. Incredible? Absolutely. Did we feel more positive in the weeks following? Yes, but then doesn't any election? It is far too early to say that this has "changed Britian". It is not the first coalition and I doubt it will be the last.

Yes, I would agree with you on that point. It would seem very premature indeed to say that election "changed Britain," this is politics after all. I'm enough of a cynic to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

In the meantime, I look forward to your exposition on the whole affair when you get time.

dblboggie wrote:Ah... here we have a difference... I think, but I believe I understand it. Your local councils would be roughly analogous to our local forms of governments within each of the states.

Yes. MPs are elected as representative of a geographical area to work in the national Parliament (or in the case of Scotland and Wales, the regional assembly). The council decides on how to spend money and manage local resources that are granted by central government and set their own council tax rates (money that central government does not actually receive because it is acquired and spent locally for local issues). Councils can only work within the framework of the law but they are generally autonomous with only minimal interference from central government. The MP has no say in the running of the council and is not their leader. The two issues are separate.

dblboggie wrote:Interesting, AV sounds like it would give the LibDems an advantage they don't currently possess, and is in effect giving them two bites at the apple.

Or readdressing an inbalance that has existed since they were relegated to the third party in the 1920s. How do you perceive that they will get an advantage? Whereas a Labour voter might vote Lib-Dem as a second choice, it is by no means a foregone conclusion. Their is much that would prevent traditional voters of both parties from voting for the other. Left-Right divide is not as polarised as it is on your side of the Atlantic.

dblboggie wrote:Are there any other parties of significant size that are analogous to the Tories?

No, not really. But then the lack of difference between Labour and Lib-Dem is not the fault of the Lib-Dem. They were very different parties until the mid 1990s when Tony Blair took them away from their working class Socialist roots. Why he ever joined that party I do not know. The Lib-Dems are not the furthest left party only by virtue of the fact that Labour muscled in on part of their territory and they have compensated by moving further left.

dblboggie wrote:In point of fact, our system is slightly more subtle that just Democrats vs. Republicans; therein lies the rub. Within the Democratic Party are various factions that do not always vote with Party on all issues.

That was the case here as well until 1997. Tony Blair introduced the notion that his party should stick together. If you look at wiki, you will see that there are internal divisions in both the Tories and the Lib-Dem parties and I recall several backbench rebellions during Thatcher's years. Interesting for you, each of those parties contains a free market wing.

I can understand why Tony Blair tried to force cohesion within Labour. After all, several Labour governments have imploded in the past, but ultimately it was damaging in that MPs were putting party politics before their conscience and their constituents. Even during The Wilderness years, the major players were very different. Michael Foote was a true old style Republican socialist; Kinnock was a Trade Union man and Blair is a "One Nation" Tory in all but name. We have a lot to blame Blairism for right now.

dblboggie wrote:At any rate, I digress (as usual), while we have two parties in name, we have many more than that in effect.

But regardless of your motives for voting for a certain party - and that your motive for voting Republican might differ from your neighbour - you effectively have a two party system and the best you can do is vote the same way and hope the term of office favours your particularly brand of the party you both voted for.

I'm not criticising, just making a statement of fact. Here we also have regional parties with Scotland, Wales and NI having MPs in Parliament, independents and even small parties who have a single seat (such as the Greens). I would have voted English Democrat Party had they had a member standing in my constituency. I had no hope that they would win but that is how small parties get bigger, by acquiring enough protest votes.

dblboggie wrote:Yes, I would agree with you on that point. It would seem very premature indeed to say that election "changed Britain," this is politics after all. I'm enough of a cynic to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

After 5 months of a proposed 5 year Parliament... absolutely. I also find it amusing that this is being touted as a "new kind of politics" when it is an uneasy alliance between our two oldest parties.

I would like to add to this debate that of the many different countries in Europe and the difference between party names and ideologies compared to that of the USA is a relevant point. For instance, in Germany the conservative party is called Christian Democrats. With many here in the USA, the word Democrat is labeled as left wing. It would be like comparing the Republican Guard (under Saddam) with the Repub party here.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:In point of fact, our system is slightly more subtle that just Democrats vs. Republicans; therein lies the rub. Within the Democratic Party are various factions that do not always vote with Party on all issues.

That was the case here as well until 1997. Tony Blair introduced the notion that his party should stick together. If you look at wiki, you will see that there are internal divisions in both the Tories and the Lib-Dem parties and I recall several backbench rebellions during Thatcher's years. Interesting for you, each of those parties contains a free market wing.

That is interesting. In reading that, I would say that is the faction within the Tory party that I would be most in line with, a libertarian stance on social issues.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I can understand why Tony Blair tried to force cohesion within Labour. After all, several Labour governments have imploded in the past, but ultimately it was damaging in that MPs were putting party politics before their conscience and their constituents. Even during The Wilderness years, the major players were very different. Michael Foote was a true old style Republican socialist; Kinnock was a Trade Union man and Blair is a "One Nation" Tory in all but name. We have a lot to blame Blairism for right now.

That is, in fact, what is happening here right now within our Democratic Party. Obama, Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and Reid (Senate Majority Leader), have been particularly ruthless in trying to force the Party as a whole to act in unison on the President's agenda, and they have been fairly successful at this. Of course, the Party is going to pay a price for this all-or-nothing push come this fall, but this not something new or unique in our politics. It is unique only in the scope of the swing the pundits expect to see, and I doubt even that is unique.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:At any rate, I digress (as usual), while we have two parties in name, we have many more than that in effect.

But regardless of your motives for voting for a certain party - and that your motive for voting Republican might differ from your neighbour - you effectively have a two party system and the best you can do is vote the same way and hope the term of office favours your particularly brand of the party you both voted for.

I'm not criticising, just making a statement of fact. Here we also have regional parties with Scotland, Wales and NI having MPs in Parliament, independents and even small parties who have a single seat (such as the Greens). I would have voted English Democrat Party had they had a member standing in my constituency. I had no hope that they would win but that is how small parties get bigger, by acquiring enough protest votes.

Actually, it's not quite that hopeless. The electorate in each federal congressional district will have it's own ideas of what they want from either parties candidates in the primaries, and the then the party with the most motivated constituency will prevail in the general election. We have 435 federal congressional districts, and each of these representatives will fall into one of the various factions within their respective parties, and will often vote (though certainly not always) in a manner consistent with the wishes of their constituencies.

And we do have other parties in the U.S., the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, and a large number of much smaller parties, including more than a few Socialist and Communist parties - we even had a self-described Democratic Socialist who was a US Representative up until 2007. Of course, none of these parties have ever really taken hold. I think it has more to do with sheer momentum than anything else really. And it doesn't help that the American people are very poorly educated in matters of government and politics these days.

Oh, and by the way, in reading that Wiki article, I learned that your House of Commons has 650 MP's!!!!! WOW! That is a LOT of MP's for such a small country! Particularly when you consider that for the entire US, we have but 435 US Representatives.

Why are there so many MP's?!?!

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Yes, I would agree with you on that point. It would seem very premature indeed to say that election "changed Britain," this is politics after all. I'm enough of a cynic to say, I'll believe it when I see it.

After 5 months of a proposed 5 year Parliament... absolutely. I also find it amusing that this is being touted as a "new kind of politics" when it is an uneasy alliance between our two oldest parties.

Yes, that is amusing. I don't think I've ever seen a "new kind of politics" in my life...

dblboggie wrote:Why are there so many MP's?!?!

Their numbers will be reduced before the next election. We are a small country, but we are highly populated. A quick calculation suggest that for 2% of your surface area, we have 20% of your population but I agree, there is far too many at the moment and the quantity has only increased since 1997. Fewer of them will mean they work harder and spend more time in Parliament voting on issues for the people they represent. This has been one of the major complaints that they are spending too little time in Parliament voting on bills.

dblboggie wrote: Yes, that is amusing. I don't think I've ever seen a "new kind of politics" in my life...

Has there been anything of the sort since Marx? Probably not, and even then I doubt all of his ideas were completely original.