Skip to main content

Post the election, whither the United Kingdom?

Leaving to one side that the pollsters were so far off the mark in their predictions for the outcome of the just concluded general election in Britain, now that the voters have spoken as this op-ed piece in The New York Times postulates, the consequences which may follow will likely not only occur in the UK but be "felt" in, for example, Europe.

"One of the most anodyne election campaigns in living memory has left Britain with a result that few expected — and one that could transform Britain both internally and externally. This was an election that recast the political geography of Britain. It may redraw the boundaries of the nation. And it raises questions about the future shape of the European Union.

It is conceivable, given the astonishing success of the Scottish National Party, that this may be one of the last elections of a United Kingdom. It is also conceivable, given the Conservative Party’s pledge to hold a referendum on European Union membership, that it may be the last general election in which Britain is a member of the union."


****

"The legitimacy of Britain’s electoral system is also now under scrutiny. The first-past-the-post system worked relatively well while British politics revolved around two main parties. There was never a perfect fit between the proportion of votes that the Labour or Conservative Party received and the number of parliamentary seats they gained, yet the relationship was close enough in a rough-and-ready way to give the system legitimacy.

Britain, however, is growing more fragmented in its political outlook. As the two-party system has mutated into a multiparty democracy, the electoral arrangements are producing highly skewed results. The Scottish National Party, for instance, won a little less than 1.5 million votes last night and 56 seats. UKIP won more than twice as many votes but has just one member of Parliament."




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...