FPTP has failed its only brief – it’s time for a better voting system

For generation, we have voted in General Elections through an archaic, unfair, and disproportional voting system, with the trade off that it creates stable governments and elects local MP’s to represent the interests of each constituency. However, in 2010, and now more significantly in 2017, this voting system has failed to achieve part one of that, creating stable governments. In 2010 the government got away with it by the fact that it had a stable coalition partner, but in 2017 it has created possibly one of the most divisive government where a party voted by 0.9% of the electorate is holding a party with 42% of the vote to ransom while majority of the electorate have no voice in government. Knowing that this voting system has now failed the only real justification for its existence by making the most unstable British government since at least before the 2nd World War, it is time to look at Alternatives. After all, the system has been infected by all types of tactical voting which stop people from voting for the party they actually believe in as well as many seeing their vote as a wasted vote, and with it, voter apathy has developed.


This graph will make sense later, I promise

Of course, Brexit supporters like to boast about the fact that there has been a referendum and my side lost, supporters of First Past the Post (FPTP) will point out there was a referendum to choose a different voting system which failed. The fact is however, AV, or the Alternative Vote was not a strong voting system which Nick Clegg, who led the AV campaign, himself called “a miserable little compromise”.

AV ultimately would not have changed everything because 1. it is still ultimately majoritarian voting system which only demanded that there was a majority in each constituency by second preferences. 2. there is no guarantee that AV would have made voting any more proportional and 3. it did not change the fact many would be stuck with a wasted vote. As it is, with the exception of STV, it is too difficult to cut up the results of the most recent election without intelligent data that I don’t currently have, I will base my argument towards the different electoral systems in the 2010 General Election in the graph bellow.


Picture: Election Reform Society

As shown, in 2010, apart from giving Labour a disproportional advantage and giving a modest rise to Lib Dem seats, AV had little effect on how proportional the result was. Furthermore, tactical voting in current elections further diminishes the overall difference AV would make to how things are now.

The most popular form of alternative voting system which is put forward, and the one the Liberal Democrats wanted and if they were a bit more gutsy in negotiations probably should have got in 2010 was full proportional representation. There are two forms of electoral systems based on a fully proportional representation. There is the list plan, which is far too silly, complicated and confusing to get into other than saying in Dutch elections there are 72 names on the ballot paper; and then there is Single Transferable Vote (STV). STV is basically one vote per person, where you vote for an individual party, and do not vote in a constituency. Parliament is then comprised by proportion to how many votes each party gets. According to almost all elections in British History, this would render no party getting an overall majority, but instead will force parties to go into coalitions. This, as I have argued before, would be a good thing, as it would force parties to work together in the national interests than their own interests. It will also mean, by using the example of Italy for example, that there would be a broader selection of parties to choose from comprising of different ideologies which gives the electorate a wide choice of parties to fit with their views, in the knowledge that their vote will not be wasted.


Above shows how the 2017 Election would have more or less looked if under STV, although, with the knowledge that every vote would count, more people may have voted for smaller national parties. Now, I personally I have a couple of problems with straight Proportional Representation. Firstly, although I feel the current system is wrong, I like the idea of having a local MP who looks after my areas interest. Under STV, that element is lost. Secondly, we have the issue of stable coalition governments. If you look at the seat structure of parliament under STV above, it is difficult to see coherent coalitions. The Conservative numbers, with support of UKIP and DUP would be 300, 26 short of a majority. With the knowledge that the SNP, Greens and Sinn Fein would never ally themselves with the Tories, and that the Liberal Democrats would never align themselves with UKIP or the DUP, it would be impossible for the Conservatives to have a coherent government. On the other hand, Labour would not have enough seats from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to command a majority, and would need the SNP to prop up any agreement, which would be another unstable 4 party coalition. If you look at the turbulence of many European Countries with proportional representation, particularly Belgium, who were left without a government for 589 days, and Italy, where one of the main coalition groups contains 9 different parties which if in government one party could drop out at any minute and topple the whole thing, it is possible that STV is not the solution.

So if FTFP is too disproportional, AV is too similar to FTFP, but true proportional representation creates the loss of local politicians, gives small % of the population a power swinging say to the whole government, and causes instability, there surely needs to be a middle option? Luckily, the most efficient country in the world, Germany, has thought of the most efficient way to trade of proportional representation with stable governments with the Mixed-Member  Proportional Representation System (MMP). MMP, or as it’s known in the UK as the Alternative + Vote, allows UK voters two votes, a vote for an individual to govern your constituency, and a vote for a national party, meaning it is a direct trade off between FPTP and STV.

As seen above from the example of the 2010 General Election, this would had given a differential between the Conservatives and Labour which reflected the difference of the amount of votes each party got, and at the same time would give the Lib Dems a fair reflection of their vote count in that election while also creating a sustainable form of coalition. In 2015 as well, the same voting system would have created a workable coalition (either Tory-Liberal or Tory-UKIP) while proportional representation would have only created a Tory-UKIP-DUP-UUP coalition. MMP also does tend to create stable governments. Since Germany introduced MMP in 1945, it has hosted less elections (18) than the UK (20) and Canada (23) has through FPTP.


Like all systems, there are issues with MPP. For example, The German system has 5% threshold of the vote needed by each party to be allowed into parliament, and this would marginalise parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which may need to be addressed if the UK was to adapt it to stop the chance of wasted votes. MMP also does not solves all the other constitutional issues of how we select our governments like fixed-term parliaments and dealing with the House of Lords. It also would be unlikely to that MMP woul have created a stable government from this months Election result. MMP however is certainly the fairest compromise of how to select governments and far better than the system we have now.

Rudrum 2017: An Alternative Manifesto?

Today begins the cycle where the political parties finally reveal what they will do in government, and give us a true reflection of what government or party they want to be. This is the week where policy positions become known and we find out all the promises which will be inevitably be broken. For someone as nerdy about policy about me it is a week where I will read an awful lot and will over-analyse all the manifestos and write blogs on them. But before the circus which bores anybody who is not me starts, it is time to get an alternative manifesto, from a leader which Britain doesn’t need, but the one it deserves. It’s the Rudrum Ramblings Manifesto. Let’s start with the most irritating subject in the universe.


Now us (me) here in Rudrum Ramblings, as every political party claims to do, respects the will of the people to leave the European Union. However We (I) at Rudrum Ramblings do not accept that out of the 51.8% of the population who voted to leave that there was not at least a 1.9% who voted to leave the EU but wanted to remain in the single market. We (I) also see a WTO style leave to be a major setback in every way for the country, as we would be now forced to spend years renegotiating trade deals with less power than before due to not being a member of a major trade block, leaving the country with weaker trade deals, and in the knowledge of history that economic isolationism always ends in financial ruin.

Therefore the Rudrum Ramblings will seek to stay in the Single Market or as close to the single market and customs market as possible with the one condition of the freedom of movement of people to be rephrased as freedom of movement of labour, thus going back to the routes of the European project. On the subject of immigration, we would also reverse the decision of Theresa May to include foreign students in the immigration figures, something which has exaggerated the level of net migration. Once our (my) Brexit policy is in place, the people will realise in this damage limitation form of the strategy what a pointless ordeal leaving was, and hostility towards Europe will subside.

Drug Policy and Policing

Not many Political Parties put drug policy near the top of their manifesto, but Rudrum Ramblings is different. Having studied Drug Policy, at particular length, including writing a dissertation on it, Rudrum Ramblings understands that Drug Policy interacts with Economic Policy, Police and Crime, Health, Tax and even Education. Currently, Britain currently spends £3 Billion each year fighting drug trafficking directly. This does not even intersect the amount of police money, time and effort spent on raids, dealing with low level drug offenses and offenders. Current UK Drug Policy, through low level drug offenders also rises crime unnecessarily, stigmatises users, and undermines rehabilitation of addictions, and that is without even mentioning that the current drug classification system has no correspondence to the comparative harm of each drug. Drug Education is also currently geared towards scare tactics rather than facts, which delegitimises the arguments and makes Drug Education less trustworthy than Alcohol or Tobacco education for example. And then there is the fact that medically advantageous drugs, in particular cannabis, are illegal to sell even for medicinal use. Rudrum Ramblings would firstly decriminalise drugs as Portugal did back in 2000, ending the thousands of police hours wasted on petty drug crime, and helping pile efforts from the money saved and the safety of legal use to help protect heroin users for example against the chances of infecting Hepatitis for example, and to rehabilitate addicts, as well as redistributing funds to other resources to help employ more police officers and reinstating legal aid  for example. Decriminalisation can also protect drug users from knock off drugs and so called “legal highs” which have flooded the market due to the lack of regulation which comes with drug prohibition, for example police forces will be free to work with clubs more to identify knock off and potentially dangerous substances. Rudrum Ramblings will also call for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis in a regulated market immediately for 5 years, which will pave the way to create the infrastructure for a heavily regulated legal cannabis market for both medicinal and recreational purposes. From the example of Colorado, which produced so much money through taxing its cannabis market that it ended up giving tax back to its residents, this market will created a great source of revenue for the government, and this money will go straight into helping fund the NHS, mental health and social care. A Rudrum administration will also legalise nitrous oxide, a drug with relatively little harm attached compared to most and also consider the legal standing over other recreational drugs with low addition rates in the future. In terms of education, with the knowledge that the current figures of recreational drug use around young adults that is inevitable that many will do drugs in their life, the aim of drug education will be to simply educate students of the effects and the risks of drugs, rather than teaching the worst case scenario.


In terms of more crime ideas, fox hunting will remain banned as its for silly upper class people with too much time on their hands; freedom of speech laws will be more readily protected (even if people say disgusting things they should only be prosecuted for it if what they say equates to a threat); the snoopers charter shall be reversed and the European Court of Human Rights will be continued to be protected under our unmodified constitution. There will also be a recruitment drive to help the police deal with cyber attacks in particular.

The Economy and Tax

I think everyone reading this will be aware that over the last 40 years the richest 1% have got proportionately richer rather than the rest of the population have got  proportionately poorer. To add to this there is a lack of funding for effectively every area of governance and the economy in generally. To deal with this Rudrum Ramblings will start with Tax. Firstly, 2p will be added to income tax, while Corporation Tax will be raised to 22% to be in line with everybody else’s tax incomes. To add, Rudrum Ramblings would raise the highest rate of tax back to 50% for those earning 6 figure salaries (instead of £80,000 upwards), will introduce a bonus tax which will correspond at the same rate of income tax at every level (ie anything bonus less than £12,000 is free, everything from £12,000 – £100,000 is 22% tax and anything £100,000 upwards is 50%) Rudrum Ramblings will also reverse the Bedroom Tax, changes to inheritance tax and will also introduce a high tax on battery farming goods. In terms of the economy, Rudrum Ramblings will firstly raise the minimum wage for 16 – 25 year olds to be equal to the rest of adult workers. More importantly, Rudrum Ramblings will ban zero hour contracts for full time staff, but remain its legality for part time and student work, and take a world lead in tax avoidance by closing tax loopholes in British overseas territories.

More ambitiously, Rudrum Ramblings will incentivise small and big businesses to raise the wages of its workers by offering grants to help bring up the average pay of employees, this should in turn raise productivity with a happier workforce and therefore create more wealth and in turn bring more money back into the economy. Businesses will also find more government support in return to significantly reducing their carbon footprint. More regulation will also be introduced to properly scrutinise the financial and business sectors and make sure that they are making decisions which do not lead to a long term public loss in return to short term gain. Rudrum Ramblings also endorses the Conservative, former Ed Miliband policy of a cap on energy bills. In terms the renationalisation, I believe the Labout policy on the railways and the Royal Mail is spot on, and that with the railways in particular, a system closer to the running of the ultra reliable continental services, the better. In my opinion the German system of running an economy, and indeed a country, is the most effective in the world, and in doing so, a Rudrum Ramblings government would encourage British businesses to be structured more like German businesses, this includes encouraging and making it easier for independent trade unions to buy 25% of a business, to give the average worker a greater say in how a business is run. Some may say this is a mad socialist dream, but this is how Volkswagen in run, and VW is one of the most successful businesses in the world.

Defence and Foreign Policy

The Rudrum approach to defence recognises that a nuclear deterrent is needed partly to the fact that it protects Britain’s standing in the world and that in the current climate having no nuclear deterrent is unelectable. However, we don’t need as many nuclear weapons as we do now and certainly the price of replacing Trident could be used much better on funding other programs such as conventional weapons, supporting the economy and welfare or education for example. Therefore Rudrum Ramblings would seek to replace only two of the submarines of the current Trident system, and also buying from America rather than designing our own more expensively. Halving of weapons would save £5 billion over a parliament, taking two submarines out of operation now would save roughly £600 million, and not having to pay for the R&D for nuclear weapons would likely double the savings made on trident. £2 Billion of the budget saved will go on conventional weapons, including supporting the army, while another £2 Billion would go on building up cyber defences.

In terms of foreign policy, The Rudum policy on refugees will mirror the Liberal Democrats, promise to take in £10,000 a year for the next 5 years. We will cease to trade arms with Saudi Arabia and other nations which use our arms to cause huge suffering on innocents. Having said that, in recognising that China is becoming the world’s dominant superpower, we will attempt to have closer links to them, as well as establishing closer links the other emerging economies such as Brazil. A Rudrum government will also only support military intervention if there is a clear plan and endgame at the end of the intervention, and above all else, Britain will support closer international cooperation in both military and in the attempt to tackle international tax dodging, fraud and crime. Finally, our policy on the Trump administration will be to keep within a friendly distance without jumping into bed with it like Theresa May has done, and that we should not be afraid to criticise an ally for some controversial policies.

Housing and Benefits

In terms of Housing, Rudrum Ramblings understands the biggest issue is supporter 1st time buyers. That’s why Rudrum Ramblings proposes subsidising construction companies to then build affordable housing, recognising that the reason construction companies don’t do so now is because there isn’t money to be earned in it. Rudrum Ramblings will also place restrictions on 2nd home buyers and landlords, to make it harder for those who are simply just buying to rent out harder to rip people up, drive up the housing market and make a profit. Rudrum Ramblings will keep the current coalition government scheme of help to buy.


What the Daily Mail Thinks is going on

In terms on benefits, Rudrum Ramblings will reverse the cuts to Disability benefit, and change the way people on disability are assessed compared to the inhuman way they are assessed currently. We will also allow for  anybody at taxpaying age to have the right to a housing benefit safety net in order to fight homelessness, will reverse cuts to tax credit, which effects low paid workers more than anyone else, and to not stop Child Benefit after a certain amount of children in one family, and rather have a sliding scale where the amount extra you get in child benefit decreases with each child. Rudrum Ramblings will also get of the triple lock for those who have pensions totaling £100,000 a year or more, and will take away free bus passes to the same demographic as well, but will protect the majority of pensioners. Unfortunately Rudrum Ramblings does conclude that the rise of the retirement age is necessary to keep expenditure down and to invest in other areas.


First things first, tuition fees. I am for the scrapping of tuition fees and the reintroduction of grants to help support poorer students BUT I also believe that to maintain some of the best universities in the world, there needs to be some extra income rather than just government funding. Because of this, Rudrum Ramblings proposes scrapping tuition fees and replacing it with a Graduate Tax equaling a 2% charge on earnings over £25,000, 4% on earnings over £50,000 and 8% on earnings over £100,000. This system would not saddle people with years in debt, creating economic uncertainty and poor credit ratings, but will still create the revenue needed to maintain a successful university system. The Government will also invest extra money into university and science to cover the cost of the money lost by EU investment. Rudrum Ramblings will also put in legislation which demands that degrees in business and economics must offer a mandatory first year module in ethics.

In terms of Primary and Secondary education Rudrum Ramblings fully endorses charging VAT on Private Schools, unless they actually are charities, to help fund better education for the masses. Rudrum Ramblings also sees the idea of free schools as a waste of money, and the idea of Grammar Schools as toxic and counterproductive, and will fully support investing money into existing schools only, and following the model which has been successful in London. At Primary School and lower High School level, Rudrum Ramblings will, minus the teaching of Basic Maths, English, Science and IT skills, allow teachers more freedom to teach more freely, sticking less to a curriculum and more on the idea of learning rather than just being able to pass tests. Rudrum Ramblings will also encourage more mixed ability classes, as those were the ones which helped myself out the most when I was at school.

Government and Politics will also become a mandatory subject to be taught at Secondary School, as it is shocking how many people of my generation have no understanding of politics or the political system.

Finally Rudrum Ramblings will give teachers a 5% raise in salary and promise to allow wages to increase at the same speed as inflation.

We also have a problem of a lack of manual skills such as mechanics in the UK for example, so a Rudrum Ramblings government will increase the apprenticeship levy and launch a 3 year long recruitment campaign to encourage more young people to get qualifications and apprenticeships in motor trade jobs, as well as other jobs we are short staffed with such as the NHS.


Away from the EU, which was covered earlier, there are three important constitutional issues which Rudrum Ramblings would address.

Firstly, it is clear through all the talk of tactical voting, the fact that in 2015 the Party with 36% of votes got a majority and in 2010 a party with 23% of the votes only got 8% of seats, that first past the post is no longer fit for purpose. However I also understand that true proportional representation has in European countries such as Italy has created unstable, multi-party coalitions, and there is a fear it can cause instability. To add, this system also loses the positive note of local representatives in government. Therefore on the voting system there needs to be a compromise. Luckily this voting system already exists in Germany, where every voter gets two votes, one for a constituency, which works like our current system, and one for a political party, which works proportionately. Those votes are then split 50/50 to create the composition of parliament. This makes voting more proportional but is also likely only to create two party coalitions, which has worked in the past in the UK.


(Photo: Daily Express)

The Second issue of the House of Lords, which Rudrum Ramblings would make half democratic through proportional representation but keep the appointed side, which will actually be 80%  elected through specialist expert organisations through industry, science and health for example, and 20% party peers.

The third issue is the Scotland issue. Rudrum Ramblings would follow Gordon Browns suggestion of a fully federal system of Scotland, and revamp local government across the UK to create a fully federal system, to allow flexibility in policy to suit the needs of individual areas. If the UK is able to stay in the single market, Rudrum Ramblings would deny Scotland a 2nd referendum, but if we fail to do that, because of the promises made in the last referendum , it would only be politically right to let them have a second one.


As mentioned earlier, I 100% agree with Labour’s policy of renationalising the trains and the approach of simply waiting for contracts to run out is also a good efficient way to renationalise as it gives time for governments focus on each railway area at a time and therefore give the proper time and investment to each line. However, having been a passenger on Southern Rail, where my supposed 30 minute journey from London to Woking and return was actually 45 Minute and 1 hour 30 minutes respectively, would buy the franchise straight away, simply because of the level of disaster it currently is. Sticking with Public Transport, Rudrum Ramblings endorses councils to run half of its bus services, like my university city of Nottingham currently does. The bus services are efficient, frequent and cheep – I could get from Nottingham to Derby as a student for a single £1 in 45 minutes. I would also reinvest the money saved from the revoking of some bus passes to subsidise village routes and students. Furthermore, in appreciation that Boris Bikes are an excellent idea, I would also encourage the system to be rolled out in all major cities.

Rudrum Ramblings will also support a third runway at Heathrow and the completion of HS2.

In terms of the Motor Industry, I would reinstate the subsidies on green energy cars. I will also add further tax on Diesel cars and would also demand Formula E back into London, to encourage the evolution of Electric Cars to suit both environmentalists and petrolheads alike.


Supporting Sport which encourages the future of sustainable energy is vital to the transport sector.


Rudrum Ramblings will allow the decriminalisation of prostitution and would also support the lowering of the voting age to 16, even if not enough young people vote as it is.

We will back a ban on fracking and will also support an abolishment of safe space zones, a phenomenon which stifles freedom of speech and debate at university. We would also follow Norman Lamb’s suggested reforms for mental health.

Finally, we shall cut funding to the royal family, as quite frankly, the royal family have more than enough money of their own to be funded by the state as the world’s richest benefits family.

British Politics: Explained through Game of Thrones

game-of-thrones-1349 (1)If you have been living in a cave for the last two weeks you may have missed that there’s a lot been going on in British politics recently. The impact of Brexit has led to that both the Conservatives and Labour are in civil war, with UKIP possibly about to be, while Scotland prepares for another independence push. All these different political factions are hard to keep up with, so I have decided to explain the political situation in Britain through a TV show which has even more factions which half of them nobody can actually ever remember-Game of Thrones. As they are in power, let’s start with the Tories.

The Conservatives

Let’s start with the people who can’t agree if their favourite punching bags are the poor, young or disabled; the Tories. The Conservatives can be described by the alliance holding the iron throne at the start of Game of Thrones, as an alliance between the Baratheons and the Lannisters. The Baratheon Tories are the likes of Cameron and Osborne, who are good at winning elections or in the case of Robert Baratheon, wars, but are absolutely hopeless at running a government. Although less nasty than the Lannisters who want to stab them in the back every second, like Robert Baratheon, Cameron’s failure of governance has led to his downfall. The Lannister side of the Tory party comes from those who care about money and themselves and that’s about it. This includes Thatcher, but for more contemporary examples, Boris “Joffery” Johnson, Michael “Cersei” Gove and Iain Duncan Smith would fit.

In terms of the current power struggle in the Tory party, Michael Gove, like Cersei Lannister, just cares about his own power, Theresa May is like Stannis Baratheon, someone who believes the seat of power is rightfully theirs and probably would sacrifice family members to make that happen, Stephen Crabb is Remly, as he isn’t quite as bad as some of the others but is bound to lose quickly, Andrea Leadsom is a Jaime Lannister type who is a more vanilla Cersei, while Liam Fox is like Kevan Lannister in that he is horrible but he is also quite rubbish.


Next up is the party probably in a bigger mess of them all is Labour, and this is because the amount of factions there are. This is because Labour’s voting alliance tends to be between The Northern Working Class (Starks), The Liberal bourgeoisie (Targaryen), the radical left (the Sparrows), the left to centre southern cities (Tully’s) and the majority of ethnic minorities (Dothraki and others across the narrow sea). Those within the parties who can be compared to Targaryen are mixed, as there are the ones which built parts of Westeros (or the United Kingdom) such as Clement Attlee with the NHS and then the Targaryen tag can also be given to New Labour, as they were in charge for an age. Also like that houses downfall, New Labour partly fell from power because their leader went mad (Tony Blair). Like the Targeryens, New Labour also have some up and coming MPs who could become PM in Chuka Umunna and Dan Jarvis, the Daenerys’s of the current Labour party, while Hilary Benn with his petulance and warmongering follows a more Viserys path.

The Starks are the northern Labourites which traditionally the North would support even if the candidate was a donkey with a red ribbon on it. The modern day “Starks” would be the like of Andy Burnham and Angela Eagle. And of course like the Starks, these people are becoming more and more under fire from the Boltons, or as they are also known, UKIP. Very closely linked to the Starks are the Tullys, who are practically the same as the Starks but less Northern, although they have been less vocal since Ed “Catelyn” Miliband and Ed Balls were massacred in the red wedding of the 2015 General Election.

Who is Jeremy Corbyn and co you may ask. Well, Jeremy Corbyn is the High Sparrow, as he like Corbyn is from the capital, comes out of nowhere, becomes more powerful than he should do, has a large following keeping him in power, and he p***** off the establishment so much they all wouldn’t mind if he was run over by a bus the next day. So if this analogy was 100% accurate, the Starks, Targeryens and Tullys have teamed up to try and overthrow the High Sparrow, but like the High Sparrow, Corbyn himself is proving very stubborn and continuing to **** everyone else off.

The Liberal Democrats

The best way to describe the Liberal Democrats would them being the Tyrells, deciding to ally themselves with the most powerful party/family in the country and as a result are absolutely decimated. Now, like the Tyrells, the Liberal Democrats have no heir to Nick “Margaery” Clegg and only chance of any further political power or difference is aligning themselves with the enemies of those in power.


Contrary to the popular opinion of those in my circles that UKIP are a racist cult around Nigel Farage, UKIP can be discussed as two separate entireties. Firstly, there are the Farage-type UKIP members, who are most likely to be ex-Tories who were just too intolerant to be part of the face of Westeros/Britain. This would make these lot be the political equivalent of the Freys, who nobody would ever want to be compared to. The Northern more working-class UKIPers like Paul Nuttall for example meanwhile, are basically the Boltons, in that they, like the Starks, are Northern, but unlike the Starks, are awful awful people who are taking advantage of the left behind working class (Umbers and Karstarks) by blaming their plight on immigration while it was actually mainly caused by 35 years of failed economic policy.


Walder Frey: A man only Nigel Farage can make look good.

Green Party

The Green Party are basically the Martells, as like the Martells they are run by very liberal hipsters and will never really be battling for any meaningful power other than being a minor part of a coalition. However they do have a MP as maverick as Oberyn Martell in Caroline Lucas, although I hope her uniqueness as an MP does not lead to her being crushed in the same way as her Game of Thrones equivalent.


The Scottish National Party are the party North of the boarder who have been recently managed to collect the majority of Scotlands support. The way to explain the SNP is to be Mance Rayder’s army of Wildlings. This would make Alex Salmond the political equivalent of Mance Rayder, the man who unites the Wildling/Independence force but fails to achieve it and has to ultimately fall on his sword. This would make the woman who has arguably succeeded this fight, Nicola Sturgeon, would be Jon Snow, because let’s be honest, Jon Snow is basically a woman anyway, and Sturgeon will succeed in making Scotland independent.

Plaid Cymru

Plaid Cymru are quite simply the Greyjoys, as they are a party which thinks they matter more than they actually do, and anyone outside their domain couldn’t care less about them. Likely to ally with the left forces (in the same way the Greyjoys have aligned themselves with the Targaryens at the end of series 6) if a coalition takes place.


The BNP/Britain First/EDL are all interchangeable as they are all the worst case scenario of what could happen in the Britain and if there was ever a threat of them getting to power winter would well and truly be coming. With this in mind, the best way to describe these vile people is by comparing them to the White Walkers, although the idea that Nick Griffin can turn the BNP into a level on Nazi Zombies isn’t the most pleasant idea.

Rupert Murdoch

The creepy overlooker of British Politics who always seems to back the winning side: Murdoch is of course Petyr Baelish, sitting in the background pulling the strings. On a serious note to end this, it is still scary that a newspaper as vile as The Sun has now backed the winner of every major referendum or election since 1979.