UK politics demystified – ask your general election questions here!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 04MR17
Watch BBC news each day, usually quite a good way to pick it up
Thank you , will do
Hi!
Currently starting a Politics newsletter with 2 other students. Let me know if you want to take part- good for CVs!
Currently starting a Politics newsletter with 2 other students. Let me know if you want to take part- good for CVs!
What are some good informative news sources that have credibility for being reliable? (I dont mind them having a bias if it is trustworthy for the most part)
Original post by FrogTesseract
What are some good informative news sources that have credibility for being reliable? (I dont mind them having a bias if it is trustworthy for the most part)
Well despite the common cynicism, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky still do pretty accurate and reliable reporting – certainly as well as anyone else does.
The broadsheet newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) can vary a bit – obviously none of that list are politically neutral and can often be selective in their reporting, but at the same time most of their reporting of facts tends to be reliable, even if they often put a spin on it.
For more international news, agencies like Reuters and the Associated Press, outlets like CNN are usually of high quality.
If you don't have it already, I'd still say get Twitter and follow some of these and perhaps their journalists if you're interested in keeping up with the news more!
Original post by Saracen's Fez
Well despite the common cynicism, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky still do pretty accurate and reliable reporting – certainly as well as anyone else does.
The broadsheet newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) can vary a bit – obviously none of that list are politically neutral and can often be selective in their reporting, but at the same time most of their reporting of facts tends to be reliable, even if they often put a spin on it.
For more international news, agencies like Reuters and the Associated Press, outlets like CNN are usually of high quality.
If you don't have it already, I'd still say get Twitter and follow some of these and perhaps their journalists if you're interested in keeping up with the news more!
The broadsheet newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) can vary a bit – obviously none of that list are politically neutral and can often be selective in their reporting, but at the same time most of their reporting of facts tends to be reliable, even if they often put a spin on it.
For more international news, agencies like Reuters and the Associated Press, outlets like CNN are usually of high quality.
If you don't have it already, I'd still say get Twitter and follow some of these and perhaps their journalists if you're interested in keeping up with the news more!
Thank you very much! Following journalists sounds look a very good idea, getting it straight from the source without potential edits/censorship.
so from my limited a level law knowledge, a select committee oversees government agencies. and they also debate certain matters within draft bills of parliament (i see them as useless too paha). then appg... they're not actually officially statused in parliament so i don't see their point either. it's cool that all political parties can co-exist in a group like that though and equal with each other.
when labour came into power in the late 1990s (i believe), they actually acknowledged how many people were in the house of lords- and they had a temporary solution and narrowed it down to only a few hereditary peers and more life peers who had actually earned the right to be there. however there's never been a permanent solution to this. i certainly don't see a point on the house of lords as they're practically useless in the legislative procedure and they're not elected like parliament either.
when labour came into power in the late 1990s (i believe), they actually acknowledged how many people were in the house of lords- and they had a temporary solution and narrowed it down to only a few hereditary peers and more life peers who had actually earned the right to be there. however there's never been a permanent solution to this. i certainly don't see a point on the house of lords as they're practically useless in the legislative procedure and they're not elected like parliament either.
Select committees are supposed to scrutinise the work of the government, so there's one per department plus some others. As well as the opposition shadow ministers scrutinising ministers on the floor of the House of Commons (and Lords), they are supposed to be a calmer, more cross-party environment for backbenchers to scrutinise in more detail rather than performing for the cameras. As select committee meetings are also broadcast, often on rolling news when there is something a bit juicy, it's not clear whether they're always fulfilling that purpose.
APPGs are more for any group of MPs to get together and talk about an issue they're interested in. These can be very active or very inactive, big or small. They don't really have an official role in the parliamentary process. Some can be essentially a front for companies that want to lobby parliament/government.
With the Lords, yes, membership is growing as PMs have near-unlimited ability to appoint more members. I think the minimum level of reform that is going to need to happen at some point is to reduce that number. That said, it's worth saying that many members don't attend that often – and it's designed so that members can just pop along when something that matches their interests/specialisms comes up, rather than attending every day like a full-time MP, which is why Lords are paid a daily payment on days they attend rather than an annual salary.
(I've moved this over to the AUA thread as I thought it would fit quite well!)
APPGs are more for any group of MPs to get together and talk about an issue they're interested in. These can be very active or very inactive, big or small. They don't really have an official role in the parliamentary process. Some can be essentially a front for companies that want to lobby parliament/government.
With the Lords, yes, membership is growing as PMs have near-unlimited ability to appoint more members. I think the minimum level of reform that is going to need to happen at some point is to reduce that number. That said, it's worth saying that many members don't attend that often – and it's designed so that members can just pop along when something that matches their interests/specialisms comes up, rather than attending every day like a full-time MP, which is why Lords are paid a daily payment on days they attend rather than an annual salary.
(I've moved this over to the AUA thread as I thought it would fit quite well!)
I was impressed essentially by David Cameron, however Dr Theresa May was just as tremendous a British political icon , I found David Cameron's stance on Brexit to be essentially what the United Kingdom required as a sum of at least GBP4,000,000, 000 was recovered in royalties that were owed by the European Union commission and that may have essentially led to his eventual downfall and the recurring crises that accrued to different administrations of his successors such as Boris Johnson and at present Rushie Sunak, thank you, Mpho47
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67630258
I was reading this article and had a bit of a scare. If it's true that you'll need to earn 38k a year in order to bring your partner to the UK, that's just bone chilling in my opinion. HOWEVER, I went to the family visas section in the home office website and read that the current requirement of 18k is the combined sum of both partners... so I'm wondering if this new 38k minimum is also for the combined earnings of both partners? It's a bit unclear to me.
I was reading this article and had a bit of a scare. If it's true that you'll need to earn 38k a year in order to bring your partner to the UK, that's just bone chilling in my opinion. HOWEVER, I went to the family visas section in the home office website and read that the current requirement of 18k is the combined sum of both partners... so I'm wondering if this new 38k minimum is also for the combined earnings of both partners? It's a bit unclear to me.
Original post by Scotland Yard
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67630258
I was reading this article and had a bit of a scare. If it's true that you'll need to earn 38k a year in order to bring your partner to the UK, that's just bone chilling in my opinion. HOWEVER, I went to the family visas section in the home office website and read that the current requirement of 18k is the combined sum of both partners... so I'm wondering if this new 38k minimum is also for the combined earnings of both partners? It's a bit unclear to me.
I was reading this article and had a bit of a scare. If it's true that you'll need to earn 38k a year in order to bring your partner to the UK, that's just bone chilling in my opinion. HOWEVER, I went to the family visas section in the home office website and read that the current requirement of 18k is the combined sum of both partners... so I'm wondering if this new 38k minimum is also for the combined earnings of both partners? It's a bit unclear to me.
I've been a bit out of the loop on holiday but from what I've read in my daily news emails, I think that is true.
Original post by Saracen's Fez
I've been a bit out of the loop on holiday but from what I've read in my daily news emails, I think that is true.
Hey Fez, actual question for you!
I don't really understand this whole Rwanda situation. Mainly, why?
Is there a genuine actual reason that the Government thought to do this? Is there some sense to what appears to be madness?
Just wondering if there is an angle I am missing from all the chat about it.
Original post by CheeseIsVeg
Hey Fez, actual question for you!
I don't really understand this whole Rwanda situation. Mainly, why?
Is there a genuine actual reason that the Government thought to do this? Is there some sense to what appears to be madness?
Just wondering if there is an angle I am missing from all the chat about it.
I don't really understand this whole Rwanda situation. Mainly, why?
Is there a genuine actual reason that the Government thought to do this? Is there some sense to what appears to be madness?
Just wondering if there is an angle I am missing from all the chat about it.
A good question! Big caveat that I've not really been in the loop with the news this week, but it's all about deterrence: the idea that if you send a planeful of Channel migrants to Rwanda, people will be sufficiently deterred to stop coming. There was never enough capacity in Rwanda to take all the asylum seekers, nor does the Rwanda scheme, where people first turn up in Britain and are then put on a plane, actually 'stop the boats' other than if it has a deterrent effect.
So that is the government's gamble, and all of the legal wrangling has to be put in the context of the government hoping and praying that it deters people. Time will tell even if it does get up and running, but I can't see it deterring Channel crossings to anywhere near the level the government hopes it will!
Original post by Mpho47
I was impressed essentially by David Cameron, however Dr Theresa May was just as tremendous a British political icon , I found David Cameron's stance on Brexit to be essentially what the United Kingdom required as a sum of at least GBP4,000,000, 000 was recovered in royalties that were owed by the European Union commission and that may have essentially led to his eventual downfall and the recurring crises that accrued to different administrations of his successors such as Boris Johnson and at present Rushie Sunak, thank you, Mpho47
I am delighted by the appointment of Lord David Cameron to the office of external affairs as I previously alluded to his achievements and I am grateful as they have proven to be tenable as such Rushie Sunak at present could focus his attention on the immigration issue as he is correct in suggesting that the Visa processing issues for refugees could be concluded even in Third World countries such as Rwanda and be sent back for resolution as countries such as France which may have been Rwanda's colonizer could assume the responsibility for the repatriation of its refugees accordingly, thank you.
I have a few questions I thought of earlier today, even before the GE was confirmed 
Exciting!
I have heard a lot about the UK system not representing the country very well, I was wondering where this came from? I had a bit of an idea from discussions from the last General Election and from reading about how other countries run their elections, however I was wondering if maybe there was a clearer way to explain this as I found it quite confusing!
Another thing I've heard a lot lately, is that in order for Labour to win, they would need a large "swing". Could you clarify what is meant by this? Is this also to do with how the UK is represented in the electoral system as well?
Exciting!I have heard a lot about the UK system not representing the country very well, I was wondering where this came from? I had a bit of an idea from discussions from the last General Election and from reading about how other countries run their elections, however I was wondering if maybe there was a clearer way to explain this as I found it quite confusing!
Another thing I've heard a lot lately, is that in order for Labour to win, they would need a large "swing". Could you clarify what is meant by this? Is this also to do with how the UK is represented in the electoral system as well?
Original post by CheeseIsVeg
I have a few questions I thought of earlier today, even before the GE was confirmed Exciting!
I have heard a lot about the UK system not representing the country very well, I was wondering where this came from? I had a bit of an idea from discussions from the last General Election and from reading about how other countries run their elections, however I was wondering if maybe there was a clearer way to explain this as I found it quite confusing!
Exciting!I have heard a lot about the UK system not representing the country very well, I was wondering where this came from? I had a bit of an idea from discussions from the last General Election and from reading about how other countries run their elections, however I was wondering if maybe there was a clearer way to explain this as I found it quite confusing!
So I think what you're getting at here is the voting system: it works on the basis of dividing the UK into 650 roughly equally sized populations and then electing the candidate in each seat that gets the most votes. The thing with that though is that if you have a couple of dominant parties who get a higher proportion of the vote to other parties, a lot more of the winning candidates (i.e. MPs) are from those parties, and especially the party that wins the most votes, than their proportional share. This has a cyclical effect because people then adjust their voting behaviour (they become even more likely to vote for a candidate from a major party as they're more likely to actually win), which skews the effect and means that the election winner doesn't generally have any incentive to change the system to make it more proportionate.
As to the way other countries elect their parliaments, that question could be a thread in itself!
Put very simply though, the only way to have a proportional system is to elect multiple rather than a single MP per constituency/area/region.Another thing I've heard a lot lately, is that in order for Labour to win, they would need a large "swing". Could you clarify what is meant by this? Is this also to do with how the UK is represented in the electoral system as well?
Basically 'swing' is just a measure of how votes move from one party/candidate to another from one election to the next.
(You can calculate swing numerically: e.g. if you calculate the swing from Conservative to Labour, you add the number of percentage points that the Conservative vote fell and the number of percentage points that the Labour vote rose, then divide that number by two!)
If you don't have any more data to identify specific local trends, you have to rely on uniform swing. This basically assumes that the swing will be the same everywhere – the Labour vote will go up, for example, and the Conservative vote down following the same pattern everywhere. I believe if uniform swing were real, Labour would need a swing of around 10%. That would mean, for example, their vote going up by 10 percentage points everywhere and the Tory vote falling by 10 percentage points everywhere.
In reality, it's not like this: some areas swing more and others swing less from election to election. Local election results show that Labour are doing particularly well in winning votes in 'swing seats' – these are the seats where the two main parties are more evenly matched and (to go back to your first question) a small change in votes can change who wins. One thing we seem to be seeing is that where the number of votes needed to shift the balance to Labour is quite small, they're getting enough votes to do that, but also where the number of votes needed is much larger, they're getting a bigger swing and are in contention in those areas too. The areas where they're not getting big swings are largely where they're already miles ahead and there aren't many Tories anyway, and areas where they're miles behind.
I hope that explanation makes some sort of sense – I was hoping to make clear that swing can be both something that makes instinctive sense (the number of people 'switching their vote') but also is easy to calculate!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- General election 2024: what are your reading and listening recommendations?
- UK politics?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Manifesto
- LNAT Section B
- Are you voting in your first general election this year?
- Which party should you vote for? (isidewith) - Take the quiz!
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Your one stop shop for silly general election news stories
- Will you be voting tactically in this UK general election?
- Oxford super/extracurricals
- Rishi Sunak working towards general election in 'second half of the year'
- How to get an A* in Politics?
- Will you vote in the general election?
- AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- 2024 general election: Liberal Democrat campaign
- UK politics opinion poll discussion thread
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Can Labour lose the next election over the Winter Fuel allowance?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 1 month ago
[Golden Thread] - Which celebrity would you choose to become Prime Minister?Last reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
What do you consider as the best way for resolving the nationwide housing crisis?
