
UK election: Conservatives lose majority - kefabean
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40209282
======
buserror
To me it demonstrates the mastery of the ruling class at strategy. Just the
ticket when you plan to want to rule something as complicated as a country!

Seriously, I'm completely apolitical, but this one is probably one of the
worst strategic blunder, ever. Oh, perhaps that and Cameron's brexit gamble.

And it feels exactly like that; they are just gambling with the future of the
country, repeatedly, with just petty objectives and personal power in play.

And it's on pretty much every sides of the political landscape, it's feels to
me (as an adult) like a watching a gang of 10 years old all trying to pull on
a rag, only difference being that we live on the rag :-)

Ok, rambling over. it's friday! :-)

~~~
matthewmacleod
Honestly, I reckon May's decision was understandable. Great polling with a
complex negotiation coming up - makes sense to establish a national convention
consensus government and press on (regardless of that decision being a bad one
or not).

But she completely fluffed the campaign, to a ludicrous extent. She had a weak
opposition and popular support, and seemed to make every possible attempt to
run as poor as a campaign as possible.

I'm nervous about this being spun as a victory for the left, which I'm already
hearing. It's more of a collapse of the Tories.

~~~
sqldba
How is it a collapse for the Tories when they still have 48.5% of the vote? It
seems pretty good to me - though I'm not familiar with English politics.

(Serious Q not attacking)

~~~
lyschoening
The latest projections have them at 42.4% of the vote vs Labour's 40.1%. They
do have 48.5% of the seats because of an unfair system.

~~~
mamon
There's always a tension between fairness and stability.

In a perfectly fair system you can end up with dozens of small parties, each
having small number of people in parliament, struggling to find majority for a
government (see last elections in Netherlands).

That's why some voting systems are designed to give a winning party some
premium over their vote percentage.

~~~
lhopki01
The supposedly stable system has led to 3 nation elections in 7 years
(probably another one this year too) and 2 hung parliaments in the same time.
Meanwhile Germany and many other countries have very stable politics with
proportional representation.

~~~
lostlogin
To add to this, having a system which has to learn to work with other parties,
negotiate and compromise is a good thing. MMPs supposed downsides are not
necessarily so.

~~~
walshemj
But it does mean that fringe extremist parties can get pet policies passed by
holding their partners feet to the fire that the majority of the population
wouldn't vote for

Its why NI doesn't have abortion or the same rights for Gay people its down to
the Ultras in the DUP as Churchill Said "nothing so loyal as an Ulster
"policeman"

~~~
majewsky
> But it does mean that fringe extremist parties can get pet policies passed
> by holding their partners feet to the fire that the majority of the
> population wouldn't vote for

Evidence for this: CSU in Germany (the quite-a-bit-more-right-wing sister
party of Merkel's CDU).

~~~
lostlogin
Evidence of it would be present in just about every MMP government ever
formed. Here in New Zealand it's present. Sure, the tail wags the dog a
little, but if it happens too much the larger party in government loses votes
next election.

------
da_n
I'm hoping this puts a dampener or even better kills the May-driven
Conservative manifesto pledge to "create a new internet".

~~~
cm2187
I think two things could happen. A torry-libdem coalition which would kill
these nonsensical surveillance laws (libdem vetoed them in the past), or a new
general election soon, then all bets are off.

~~~
isostatic
Lib Dems were crucified for their vital and successful minority partner in
government for 10-15. The UK population wants a dictator, not a grown up
concensus.

This will be a Tory government with DUP support on confidence and supply

~~~
cm2187
I don't know DUP. What is there view on surveillance?

~~~
andygates
I have a sinking feeling they would love it all along a new border wall with
Eire. :/

~~~
isostatic
DUP want an open border between north and south.

~~~
moomin
Indeed, and this is likely to be a major sticking point with May. You can't
really tell any kind of anti-immigrant story with a fully open border, but a
fully open border is what peace in Ireland needs, and the DUP fully recognize
that.

It's important to understand that support for moderate parties in Northern
Ireland has only collapsed because both Sinn Fein and the DUP are seen as
being fully committed to the peace.

------
HalfwayToDice
Just a reminder, and I think it's getting lost here in the HackerNews
demographic narrative.. but:

 _The Conservatives Won The Election_

They will be ruling for 5 years, in a coalition with the even more
conservative DUP.

Labour/progressives are out of power for at least another 5 years.

I know it's a bucket of cold water, but I think people aren't facing up to
reality after Corbyn did much much better than expected. _But he still lost_.

~~~
lyso
This is not going to be a five year parliament given the outcome. It might not
be a five month parliament.

------
mtgx
This election shows once again how terrible the FPTP voting system is. The
Tories gained like 41% of the vote, but 48% of the seats. And this is a
"better" outcome than it would've been in the U.S., where you also have other
high arbitrary thresholds for third-parties, and the media virtually ignores
them throughout the year-long election cycles.

If the Tories had 41% of the seats (per the number of votes they received) and
Labor 40%, it would've been _much_ easier to form a majority with Labor. Now
that seems unlikely, even though all parties should see that the Tories are in
rapid decline in the voters' eyes, and they shouldn't attach themselves to the
Conservative party in any way.

It's a real shame the Tories killed ranked choice voting (alternative voting)
in 2011. I would have still preferred a proportional representation system,
but RCV would've been a definite improvement over FPTP, too.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/6g6e5d/half_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/6g6e5d/half_a_million_votes_for_greens_one_mp_you_wanna/)

It's also an even bigger shame that the Liberals in Canada decided to betray
their voters and back-down on moving away from the FPTP voting system, which
was one of their biggest campaign promises in the last election. With the risk
of getting the Conservatives back in power in Canada, I hope the Canadian
voters punish them hard in the next election (by voting NDP or Green), because
such betrayal must not be rewarded.

Canada could have finally moved away from the the undemocratic FPTP voting
system, but the Liberals decided it may be better to stick to the undemocratic
voting system if it means they can just switch places with Conservatives and
dominate the government every 1-2 elections, as it happens in the United
States with the Democratic and Republican parties.

~~~
Freak_NL
As someone who lives in a country with proportional representation as the
basis of its electoral system the UK and US first-past-the-post voting system
is really weird to observe. It doesn't seem very democratic that a party could
get 20% of the popular vote nationally, but win no seats whatsoever.

~~~
vacri
This is a problem that the upper house in a bicameral system is supposed to
solve.

The lower house is assigned to smaller regions, with one representative per
region. If every single region has party X at 20% of the vote (and always
lower than another candidate), then every region has individually voted for
someone else.

The upper house is assigned to larger regions, with multiple representatives
per region. You don't have to have to come first to have at least one
representative in the upper house. As an example, in my state (victoria,
australia) we have 12 senators. They take the total vote count and figure out
how many votes you need to get a senator. They take the party with the most
votes, give them a senator, and remove X votes. Rinse, repeat. The last
senator (or sometimes two) is usually decided by preference flows. At 20% of
the vote, you'll be looking at 2/12 senators, and possibly a third depending
on preference flow.

The problems in the US and the UK are these: the fewer senators you have per
region, the harder it is to be representative, so in the US with only 2 upper
house members per region there's not much scope for variation; and in the UK,
the upper house isn't elected anyway. Mid-sized minorities just can't get
representation (mathematically, at least) in either of those two upper houses.

------
peterlk
What does this mean for Brexit? If Theresa May is kicked out, can/will it be
declawed? Can it be reversed?

Also, can someone explain to me the steps by which parties in Britain create
coalitions (or whatever) and then put a new PM in place? I'm an American, so
any reference to American politics is super helpful.

~~~
trosi
Parliament has already voted yes on Brexit, and formal communication was
already sent to the EU. According to Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty the UK
now has less than 2 years to negotiate the terms of its exit.

I don't think the process can be reversed but there is certainly a lot of
leeway in how it will happen.

~~~
djaychela
I think it can be halted - I've seen a number of high-level EU politicians say
that it's possible to stop the process if the UK decides to.

It was this that the Lib Dems were (weakly) campaigning on in the election -
to give the people the vote whether to accept the deal or stay in the EU after
the negotiations were complete.

------
nostrademons
Someone closer to the UK than me mind explaining why SNP lost so many seats,
including several that seemed pretty safe? I thought that Scottish nationalism
was on the rise after Brexit, with many people there wanting to remain within
the EU. Why the sudden shift to the Tories there?

~~~
nicoburns
Scottish nationalism is still somewhat popular, but a lot of people voting for
the SNP last time weren't actually voting for Scottish nationalism, but for a
left party, an area in which Ed Milliband's labour was deemed to be lacking.

The shift to the Tories can explained by: 1\. The popularity of Ruth Davies,
leader of the scotrish conservatives. 2\. The left vote being split between
the SNP and Labour, allowing the conservatives to win under FPTP.

~~~
sofaofthedamned
Ruth Davidson has got to be the next Conservative leader, she's hardly put a
foot wrong.

------
matthewmacleod
What an absolute mess. It really just again demonstrates that the country is
divided right down the middle - inward vs. outward, young vs. old, nationalist
vs. unionist.

Nobody is coming out of this well, and I think it's virtually certain that
there will be another general election in short order - but I don't really
expect the outcome to be much different.

I guess this is what happens when parties move apart like that. Corbyn's
Labour have shifted quite far to the left, while the Conservatives have turned
completely inward. There's a huge gap in the middle, and unfortunately our
electoral system leaves little hope of filling it.

------
brownbat
Didn't the conservatives face an impossible situation anyway? Hence all the
resignations after Brexit? Is this, with the missed debates, possibly just an
attempt to sit out a tough round of governing?

~~~
EnderMB
I'm starting to wonder whether this is a possible ploy by the Tories to sit
out of what could be a disastrous spell in politics, given that Corbyn will
likely pursue Brexit if he becomes PM.

I like Corbyn, and I think he's done tremendously with a great manifesto, but
it still remains to be seen if he can lead a country. He's in his element in
an election, as he's been a campaigner and an activist throughout his career.
It might make more sense to ignore the DUP, and to allow Labour to try and
form a progressive alliance, hoping that the economy will falter under Brexit
and a coalition government.

------
PhasmaFelis
The BBC feed says: "There's still no result in Kensington, west London, after
two recounts. The Conservatives say they'll keep calling for recounts until
they are denied any more, rather than concede, the BBC understands. As such,
there's going to be a third recount, which is either going to take place this
afternoon or tomorrow..."

What's that about? On the face of it it seems so childishly spiteful that I
feel I must be missing some strategic consideration.

~~~
RugnirViking
It actually occurred in the 1910s that there was 1 (One!) vote in an area. If
its as close as that, there is significant benefit to recounting, as any
result that tips the balance could tip the balance of some later votes given
the tories lack of a majority

~~~
isostatic
1 vote in Exeter apparently, closer to now there were only 2 votes in east
fife last night. Same in Winchester in 1997.

------
gideonparanoid
I'm curious what the under-30s turnout is. I'm hoping this will inspire
younger people & encourage them to engage more in politics.

~~~
arethuza
My 18 year old son was checking results at about 6 this morning - he voted for
the first time for Labour and our constituency was a very narrow win for
Labour over the SNP (about 250 votes).

Pretty sure his reaction is "Wow this voting thing actually works" :-)

------
PhasmaFelis
Man, it's been a bad time for Conservative mandates, hasn't it? Wasn't the
Brexit vote set up by a Conservative prime minister to prove that Britain
wanted to remain in the EU?

~~~
querulous
no. michael gove and boris johnson tried to use euroskepticism within the
conservative party to strip cameron of the leadership. the referendum was a
play by cameron to shut down the euroskeptics and sideline johnson/gove

none of gove, johnson or cameron thought the leave side had any chance of
actually winning which is why all three of them bailed in the wake of the vote

~~~
timthorn
Gove and Johnson didn't stand side. They ran for the leadership, were defeated
in various ways, then in the case of Gove was not chosen by May to be part of
the Cabinet.

------
robk
I hope the influence of the DUP in Belfast will at least put us on a footing
to get immigration and borders sorted more quickly. Those factors will have
the greatest effect on tech companies.

~~~
theBobBob
Honestly the idea of the DUP having actual power in Westminster scares me.
They are even more conservative then the Conservatives, especially about
social issues.

~~~
isostatic
Not to mention the effect on the Bi peace process - the government is no
longer neutral.

------
tkyjonathan
The result is quite ironic. It was supposed to be a 'bloodbath' for the
conservatives and the extreme right. It looks like the left/hard left got the
young out to vote.

This is largely a vote against austerity and possibly also against
globalisation. I would hope that this also translates to a more moderate
brexit.

~~~
gumaflux
Perhaps if Labour actually won own majority, sounds more like a very poorly
run campaign by May. Complete lack of leadership. Just the single fact of
shying away from debates.

Great opportunity to put country before party now.

~~~
tkyjonathan
Not a labour supporter myself, but I would saying getting 31 more seats when
you were expected to lose 20-100 (according to polls) is a victory. In
addition to cons not having a majority, labour can now actually be a proper
opposition.

------
Simulacra
I would really have loved to have been a fly on the wall when this decision
was discussed. Maybe someone from the U.K. can explain why, if you have a
majority and outright control of Parliament, that you might necessarily need
to extend that majority?

~~~
parenthephobia
> outright control of Parliament

Nobody has this! MPs are always free to vote their conscience, and sometimes
they do. The Conservatives are not all of one mind about how to conduct
Brexit.

The aim was not simply to increase the Conservative majority, but to try to
make sure that the new MPs making up that increased majority were on board
with May's hard Brexit, so there wasn't a risk of a backbench revolt
scuppering Brexit.

The party used an "emergency procedure" for candidate selection that gave the
party leadership more control than previous candidates.

* [http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/05/central...](http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/05/centralisation-and-chaos-inside-the-rush-to-select-conservative-candidates-in-time-for-the-election.html)

~~~
Simulacra
Well this is technically the case in American politics. Please, why then is it
so important to have a greater majority in the U.K.? Why do you need to reach
that line?

------
giomasce
I am not British nor familiar with British politics. Is there any article that
tries to explain the reasons behind what happened? Labours were something like
20% behind when the vote was called, but went close to winning yesterday.

~~~
knopkop
Anecdote - There wasn't any particular party that I wanted to vote for. My
vote was _against_ the Tories in protest of having to give up essential
liberties for a bit of temporary safety.

------
alkonaut
Not familiar with hung parliaments in the UK - normally there would be new
elections if a majority government can't be formed - correct?

So if LibDem/DUP and others refuse to even passively back either Labour or
Conservatives then what?

~~~
deanclatworthy
Labour plus the others won't have a majority. And no other party would join
with the tories at this point. So we are likely in store for another election,
announced in the next couple of weeks.

~~~
alkonaut
If you were to guess - what would be the result of that? Hard to say I assume
given we don't even know who will lead the Conservatives to that election, but
do you think the Labour bounce was a one off thing or a trend that might see
them take even more seats ?

~~~
querulous
hard to say. there was a narrative that corbyn was unelectable so a revote
might get more buy in from his detractors and a more unified labour front

theresa may also ran an absolutely terrible campaign and is personally
unpopular so if the tories replace her they may do better next time around.
it's hard to imagine the tories producing a credible leader on short notice
though. most of the plausible candidates will want nothing to do with this
mess and the second tier was mostly already rejected in favour of may last
year

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Yes, leader of the Conservatives could be a surprisingly difficult post to
fill.

------
drinchev
Last season of House of Cards is dangerously close to reality this time.

In US, Trump might loose his presidency. UK is a mess, based on wrong
political decisions.

I still wonder "Who is Frank Underwood and what does he win from all of this".

There is nothing unusual about a political scandal, but this time is obvious
that the elite is quite power-driven and the society is nothing more than a
voting variable in their equation.

------
PhasmaFelis
What exactly does a "strong" versus "weak" Brexit imply?

~~~
cm2187
The degree of access to the EU market. Which is effectively a tradeoff of
access to market for sovereignty. Ie if you implement all EU laws (even though
you have no say on them), you are EU compatible and will be given access.
That's basically where Norway is. There are legitimate concerns of which is
worse between loosing sovereignty over loosing the single market access.

------
chris__butters
this worryingly shows the huge divide in the nation

------
NamTaf
edit: I know they're _Unionist_ and eurosceptic, my understanding was that
they were _also_ for a single Ireland _inside_ the UK and therefore would want
a soft Brexit with an open Irish border. Thanks for correcting me on that
however.

\----------

There is no possible outcome here for the Tories that works towards a strong
Brexit. The most likely coalition partner - the DUP - is all about a unified
Ireland. Brexit is driving a major wedge into Ireland's border, so they will
undermine that at every turn.

Expect a revote in a couple of weeks. This outcome leaves no one in a position
to govern strongly and that directly weakens the UK's position in Brexit
talks.

~~~
egeekuk
Northern Ireland person here, I'm afraid you have it backwards. The DUP is
strongly opposed to a united Ireland, and (until very recently) have supported
a border of some description with Ireland.

Sinn Fein are for a united Ireland, but do not take up their seats in
Westminster.

The DUP have obtained 10 seats in this election (Sinn Fein have 7), and a
coalition between the Conservatives and the DUP looks likely. The DUP has been
bigger supporters of the Conservatives, and of Brexit.

~~~
NamTaf
Thanks mate, I had a blend of the two as my understanding per my edit. I
thought both wanted a united Ireland, but one from the Union and one from the
Republic. I had that understanding as I thought that was largely what kept the
issues within Ireland minimised.

~~~
egeekuk
No probs, what's been keeping the issues under control here is the Belfast
(Good Friday) agreement [0], which (among lots of other things):

\- grants dual nationality (British and Irish) to all the people born in
Northern Ireland (simplified, there's a bit of complexity in there)

\- allows for the Northern Ireland to become part of a United Ireland if the
majority of people in Ireland wish it

IMO there's been a voice of reason coming from the middle ground, but this
election has seen the province move more towards tribalism and the middle
ground parties loosing their seats.

[0] - [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-
agree...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement)

(edited for formatting of the bullet points)

------
vacri
What is it with the Brits and an inability to do elections right these days.
First they screw up the proportional representation referendum. Then the Scots
mistakenly choose Remain (which wasn't an error at the time, but became one
with Brexit). Then they Brexited, ironically because they want more control
and accountability but rejected prop rep. And now this shemozzle.

The rest of the world should take away the UK's voting rights until they
promise to behave!

~~~
ionised
As a Brit I have observed a large section of the population seem to suffer
from an acute and decades-long case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Much of the populace would prefer to suffer the indignities and gradual
erosion of prosperity and civil liberties inflicted on them by their ruling
classes than to risk an uncertain future on a potential change.

They are comfortable in their mistreatment.

